Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]:38554)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDX5-n2BBoEEmY_VA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RWuxd-00016R-Dv; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:09:26 -0800
Received: by ywp31 with SMTP id 31sf4745913ywp.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:09:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id
         :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:message-id:date:from:subject:to
         :in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=U/bkMXjE9448Acg9wywfGGLTai88xvUkoyBdis6MAWs=;
        b=ixaAP3SjeUuAhaKH2Swtik5axn/4Bt8ZRxK7+hFdZDbo+PAJSGNCLNrwhBBtLDAlV1
         sC2iTKAhehxLVTodv6IF6S4e1vB2SdQ/Oh2mGnLuC5jadc/v9/dyEyeUsqqEKH2vdrxL
         OspHf5s4WG6EHHgO/qarrbpNBWiHerfFvnHHo=
Received: by 10.236.183.229 with SMTP id q65mr7053642yhm.18.1322939351288;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:09:11 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.150.37.33 with SMTP id k33ls6268501ybk.0.gmail; Sat, 03 Dec
 2011 11:09:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.197.12 with SMTP id u12mr4466432anf.40.1322939350696;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:09:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.197.12 with SMTP id u12mr4466431anf.40.1322939350649;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:09:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm8.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm8.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.237.209])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id r27si4883514yhm.4.2011.12.03.11.09.10;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:09:10 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.209 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.209;
Received: from [66.94.237.196] by nm8.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2011 19:09:10 -0000
Received: from [66.94.237.101] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2011 19:09:10 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1006.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2011 19:09:10 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 335502.69707.bm@omp1006.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 24471 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Dec 2011 19:09:10 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: H_uIaZEVM1k9Sse4Bmu3hEwI6wZfpcH3jbiJaQ0IL.DQrS.
 n1kY2kdBW5td6nIFKg0S8rmuJRuV0y0wzVRs2vlIDAn9hdYx5p_BuYVooiS0
 9PIrfDjSNpKQZEWfg0nTk5Z.0hFiksG85w3H9j_c0K6_kGjF6CfDrJ7zWx.t
 .FdJpae_GrxVGMxztHzNvb5iYlX2TYVj1lfJvxQ9sXvkonJCKiPQJ6YpmQyo
 QQ7CylFDZw7dmUreuBD0eGBVVEk.nVK.3X8nVhpSTPJhd2IkU2zxwBt10UIB
 uFD4dNvwFvcqh_ZCs5LwHoFHtJGI3u8jWPCOTHv83D2nnTDyyMWa_.uTk3un
 PNXIlY1dygR3hp1aZuS3Y7PEasH3hXN2jQFdn1.0i6Lr.M8QIdDAvA3Mg6Oz
 hakI7P1VJtONq4Ta8KbUNepvnooL5HW9QN5Dw.I2w990w2smlhitF5A7jd3S
 vCLor9kL_Qya8sUOgmK1QMdlTPZ0l4uxOPUWUoCQ.vm84WD5R4yJ8D.rpQaC
 VHfzB7iGghJhpjtAnOcjibb0-
Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 11:09:10 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/589 YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.331698
References: <CAO7tK2d9HQKweQJ_RE67GS-+hr=tEL_bzsZgEUfdCavxyOpLXQ@mail.gmail.com> <20111126182915.GC15113@gonzales> <CAO7tK2fSavtz6QA1dJB0Nh7ZWC9_ucLMWdkC4Kzk2aQK9xpVrQ@mail.gmail.com> <20111126214806.GB19833@gonzales> <CAO7tK2cu1S5eGm9F21kDd6rN548CXdPqeTwEU5X4tD=OjctEfA@mail.gmail.com> <20111129030444.GA26300@gonzales> <CAO7tK2f3vj9sesm1XEOm4KArdxuKgAT84Whpn-D4HiaTFQXPWQ@mail.gmail.com> <20111129225808.GA19818@gonzales> <20111201021703.GL2886@gonzales> <CAO7tK2fH0ACodKJe7Hhwi8t_ivjiANg7d5cqEukudq6fRTZJXQ@mail.gmail.com> <20111203175028.GC12482@gonzales> <CAO7tK2eDAX-HZMubt9k5coxY=AjnxbQj67t8-2TF-sTcsnrtug@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1322939350.96634.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 11:09:10 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2eDAX-HZMubt9k5coxY=AjnxbQj67t8-2TF-sTcsnrtug@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.209
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

Typically, you have either to use Polish notation or to have a convention a=
bout=20
the same variable in several bridi.



----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 3, 2011 12:51:13 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Thursday, 2011-12-01 at 18:53 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmai=
l.com>:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Meanwhile,
>> > (ii) if {da} is already quantified, then {lo broda be da} is interpret=
ed
>> >    as a skolem function.
>>
>> If da is bound by a quantifier and "lo broda be da" occurs within the
>> scope of the quantifier, yes.
>
> Thinking about it, I'm no longer so convinced that this is important.
>
> I can't think of nor find any examples of uses of {lo broda be da} where
> the itended meaning wouldn't be given more clearly by using {ro} or
> {piro}/{ro'oi}, or occasionally some other quantifier.

What about things like: "ro da poi verba cu prami lo mamta be da"?

> It would certainly be conceptually neater to do away with this "Skolem
> function" possibility for description sumti - declare them to be
> *literally* constants, with any {da} in the description assumed not to
> be bound outside, and any anaphora to exterior variables (or connected
> terms) considered erroneous.
>
> See any compelling arguments against that?

I don't really see a problem with functions. (I don't think they are
Skolem functions though, just the usual functions of first order
logic.)

>> But I don't think you need to bring "lo" into this. We already have
>> the same issue with "ge da gi ko'a da broda", which could be either
>> of:
>>
>> (1) ge su'o da su'o de zo'u da de broda gi su'o de zo'u ko'a de broda
>>
>> (2) su'o da zo'u ge da da broda gi ko'a da broda
>
> Hmm. I have it as
>
> (3) ge su'o da zo'u da da broda gi su'o da zo'u ko'a da broda
>
> , i.e. handling the two arms of the connective separately. This
> algorithm seems most natural to me. Do you dislike this possibility for
> some reason other than the {lo broda be da} issue?

I find it weird that for one conjunct the second "da" is the same
variable as the first "da", and for the other conjunct it's a
different variable. As I said, I don't think bridi connected with eks
share words.

> (1) seems reasonable. It looks like it could be implemented (in all
> cases) by having the binding of a {da} in a connectand to the bound
> variable it creates survive only within the connectand. I think I might
> like it.

That's what makes sense to me, but of course it goes against CLL.

>> Is "da" just equivalent to "su'o da" in the same position where
>> it first occurs (in which case the scope of "su'o" is determined by
>> this position only) or is "da" bound by a quantifier with scope wide
>> enough to encompass all following occurrences of "da" (in which case
>> it may not be equivalent to "su'o da" in the same position)?
>
> Interesting idea. This is how you derive (2)?

That's the only way I can make sense of CLL's rule for implicit
quantifiers jumping out of their "natural" scope.

> But having such a preprocessing step before scope can be decided
> - meaning that in speech, the scope of a heard {da} can't be determined
> until the statement is finished - strikes me as something to be avoided
> if possible.

How else can you process CLL's implicit quantifiers having scope over
several bridi?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups=
=20
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at=20
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.