Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:55258)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhCw4-r2BBoEc75zdw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RWz50-0002Ci-OL; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:33:21 -0800
Received: by dajx4 with SMTP id x4sf2900860daj.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:33:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references
         :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key
         :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent: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;
        bh=n4ecQqsqeSR0NO+CuLjWz9S8y7xWhTlMW/zo36k8n5E=;
        b=DfXgKHpJLuf2btnBSWNItu5r5FQFDTH8K5NXOJj05xRTyVMtlWQbf2JckdElF3Vyzl
         2/Z64oEkrOWd31yi5ymsAQ4nRiw3S7s4TwCgOYnHmgoaROu3BD8m4V+LvaKMQc+oD/Eu
         MBosAUz22Igf3Wfn4sX5Mm32jTLtEav/vorSw=
Received: by 10.68.14.135 with SMTP id p7mr1849415pbc.5.1322955184669;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:33:04 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.26.8 with SMTP id h8ls19227403pbg.1.gmail; Sat, 03 Dec 2011
 15:33:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr16380996pbc.3.1322955183999;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:33:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr16380995pbc.3.1322955183987;
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:33:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u7si17722111pbn.2.2011.12.03.15.33.03
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:33:03 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19;
Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4])
	by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pB3NX3dU000769
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 23:33:03 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RWz4p-0008TD-3G
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 18:33:03 -0500
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 18:33:03 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Message-ID: <20111203233303.GB11790@gonzales>
References: <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>
 <20111203204015.GA11790@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2cMTBoMY2DUjpj00CORvUQOFo2PVoGvNOYu2Yv9ti3vEg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qlTNgmc+xy1dBmNv"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2cMTBoMY2DUjpj00CORvUQOFo2PVoGvNOYu2Yv9ti3vEg@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: sirxo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
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>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--qlTNgmc+xy1dBmNv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Saturday, 2011-12-03 at 19:06 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:

> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Saturday, 2011-12-03 at 15:51 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gm=
ail.com>:
> >> What about things like: "ro da poi verba cu prami lo mamta be da"?
> > Ah, you mean because {ro mamta be da} would get everything which is
> > motherly towards {da}, when we might want to specifically mean the
> > biological mother but not want to waste a couple of syllables by making
> > it {ro rorci mamta be da}?
>=20
> I could just as well have said "ro da poi verba cu pencu lo nazbi be
> da". It didn't occur to me you would think the version with "ro"   was
> more clear.

No more or less clear in that case... if we assume that there's only one
nose per da, then I don't see any difference between {lo}, {ro},
{piro}/{ro'oi}, {su'o} or {piza'u}/{su'oi} here. Arguably, {lo} is
a little misleading, as it asks you to use pragmatics when there's no
need for it - it might lead you to expect that some unusual metaphorical
meaning of nazbi was in use.

> > I suppose that is an example. Although the complication in semantics
> > involved seems rather large compared to this two-syllable saving...
> > generally, those situations in which it's reasonable to leave the nature
> > of a function to pragmatics seem to coincide with those in which it's
> > easy to actually express it. But maybe it seems that way only because
> > the examples I'm considering are too simple.
>=20
> How about a non-distributive case:
>=20
> ro da poi verba cu pilno lo re xance be da lo nu kavbu lo bolci

{ro da poi verba cu pilno pi ro xance be da [ku noi re mei ku'o] lo nu
kavbu lo bolci}

s/pi ro/ro'oi/ if you prefer.

Now you could say that the above could just as well be {...lo nu da
kavbu lo bolci}, and then we again have a non-constant lo-phrase. You'd
be right, and I'm not sure what quantifier to replace that {lo} with,
because I'm not sure what that {lo nu} is getting. If it's a bunch of
events, then {pi su'o}/{su'oi}; if it's a kind - I guess you'd use
{su'o}, while I would want some other quantifier for it, but I don't
know what.

But that's kind of beside the point!

> >> >>  "ge da gi ko'a da broda"
> >> >>
> >> >> (1) ge su'o da su'o de zo'u da de broda gi su'o de zo'u ko'a de bro=
da
> >> >>
> >> >> (2) su'o da zo'u ge da da broda gi ko'a da broda
> >
> >> > (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 mi=
ght
> >> > like it.
> >>
> >> That's what makes sense to me, but of course it goes against CLL.
> >
> > Really? Explicitly?
>=20
> Who knows? This is the closest I can find:
>=20
> http://dag.github.com/cll/16/10/
>=20
> <<
> 10.3)  mi .enai do prami roda
>        I, and not you, love everything.
> expands to:
> 10.4)  mi prami roda .ijenai do prami roda
>        I love everything, and-not, you love everything.
> and then into prenex form as:
> 10.5)  roda zo'u mi prami da .ije naku zo'u do prami da
>        For each thing: I love it, and it is false that you love (the same=
) it.
> >>
>=20
> 10.5 is actually ungrammatical. Presumably the second "zo'u" is
> a typo, although this section is about moving a negation to the
> prenex, so...

Quite. I've basically been ignoring this section, because it seems to be
working with a grammar in which each sentence has a prenex - which is
contrary to the official grammar, and which wouldn't fit with
specification elsewhere to the effect that {PA da} has scope over the
whole statement (when not inside a subsentence).

> Can you extract a rule from that for how connectives are supposed to
> interact with quantifiers? I don't think I can.
>=20
> (2)
> >> How else can you process CLL's implicit quantifiers having scope over
> >> several bridi?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're getting at here. As I read CLL, the first {da}
> > in a statement/subsentence is "exported" to the prenex,
>=20
> But before or after dealing with "ge"? There isn't a single "the
> prenex" to consider:
>=20
>   (prenex1) ge (prenex2) da da broda gi (prenex3) ko'a da broda

Once we've got that far, I think it's clear. The two subsentences are
handled separately - i.e. can, donkey anaphora aside, be handled in
either order - each producing a proposition. So there must be two
existential quantifiers here, one for each subsentence.

--qlTNgmc+xy1dBmNv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk7asa8ACgkQULC7OLX7LNa16ACg1Mr0fvfm9VNkoShi4xFWB5BS
T/QAn2PY90PWNG03f2hejL+kWnEDI37/
=zWmu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qlTNgmc+xy1dBmNv--