Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:59940)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhCl2-72BBoEd6DIAQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RXFrK-0007yb-8q; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:28:23 -0800
Received: by dajx4 with SMTP id x4sf3393130daj.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:28:08 -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=+Uxz1eWB7enWCF1LfZKiEevzzLky27AV3YKzuz19p9g=;
        b=SuhkYdsBG4KKNQQDMXpJYi0/O6w5GCbScnIUBG8mMcz+Aa3JZlokKMjpYUCaux5vW5
         hFV+BAFwnHdSz4D2UAIE7loZMQ3fRbMyWy0e/0IogpxgCuaV8bWsVy+mIldYW2t8yTyi
         hmEmtI5QzPD2t3HyF1ZUp/2SsZazTwJJtOPDQ=
Received: by 10.68.50.41 with SMTP id z9mr2090766pbn.12.1323019685410;
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:28:05 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.14.101 with SMTP id o5ls20991276pbc.4.gmail; Sun, 04 Dec
 2011 09:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.31.165 with SMTP id b5mr14879408pbi.1.1323019684570;
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.31.165 with SMTP id b5mr14879407pbi.1.1323019684562;
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u7si20490117pbn.2.2011.12.04.09.28.04
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 09:28:04 -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 pB4HS3Yl023832
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 17:28:04 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RXFr9-0005cm-MV
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 12:28:03 -0500
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 12:28:03 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Message-ID: <20111204172803.GA3091@gonzales>
References: <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>
 <20111203233303.GB11790@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2f4A_E4SOXgR4W4hdE9jOL6Hq+pymtkLVjG0ehmTpHRPw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20111204014942.GC11790@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2d92MaRx2tO5rfzvT97dzxfBrZ9Q8XL_kgoH7VCF+i_NA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UugvWAfsgieZRqgk"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2d92MaRx2tO5rfzvT97dzxfBrZ9Q8XL_kgoH7VCF+i_NA@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: jamna
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: /


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

* Sunday, 2011-12-04 at 10:13 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.co=
m>:

> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the intention was that implicit quantifiers on "da"
> were mere elisions, so "ge ko'a gi da da broda" would have to be
> either "(su'o da zo'u) ge ko'a gi da da broda" or "ge ko'a gi (su'o)
> da (su'o) da broda". It couldn't be something that needs an expansion
> before being made explicit.
>=20
> > If we're to let scope jump out of geks, why not also out of NOI-clauses
> > or NU-clauses?
>=20
> I don't think anything should be jumping out of anywhere, it's just a
> matter of where the elided quantifier is in the first place.

You seemed to be suggesting rules which would give {ge da broda gi de
brode} -> {su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode}, no? I'd call that
jumping.

And presumably this rule actually *would* have us jumping, in this same
sense, out of NOI or NU? e.g. {mu'i lo nu da kukte ku mi citka da} ->
{su'o da zo'u ...}?

I suppose my main complaint is just that this rule is severely
garden-pathy, in a way that's even worse than {i na je}. Consider the
case that a sentence starts with something like {mu'i lo nu na ku da
kukte}. Then we've set up a semantic bomb - and we won't know whether
it's going to be triggered by a later bare {da} - pulling the first past
the negation and wholly changing the meaning - until the end of the
whole statement. This seems unnecessarily cruel!

> There are two separate issues to consider: (1) Where is the binding
> quantifier when an expression contains apparently unbound variables?
> (2) What is the scope of an explicit quantifier which is not presented
> in prenex form?
>=20
> I don't think there's more than one reasonable answer to (2). Saying
> that "no da blabi .i je no de xekri" means something different from
> "ge no da zo'u da blabi gi no de zo'u de xekri" seems just
> unreasonable. No quote from CLL can make it reasonable. The fact that
> you need to use tu'e-tu'u if you want to move "no da" to a prenex
> while maintaining the non-prenex ijek connective form is just
> incidental.

So you really consider ijeks as just a different notation for giheks?
So e.g. you'd have {ro da muvdu .i na ja ko celgunta da}
mean "if everything moves, shoot something" rather than "if anything
moves, shoot it"?

I don't know. Certainly this is against CLL, however little you may care
about that; and I don't see that the CLL is unreasonable here. If we
want your meaning in your example, we can use {no da blabi .i no de
xekri}.

> Question (1) may admit more than one reasonable answer. The simplest
> answer seems to be that the elided "su'o" is right in front of the
> first instance of the apparently unbound variable, with scope as in
> (2), and any instance outside that scope will require new binding.
> Another perhaps reasonable answer might be that the elided "su'o" has
> scope wide enough to capture as many instances of  the apparently
> unbound variable as possible. I don't find it so reasonable that there
> be no possible place to make "su'o" explicit in the expression as
> presented.

I can see that. To be clear (because given your example at the top, I'm
not sure we already have clarity), I'm effectively disputing this only
in very rare edge cases - those of the form {[PA] da .A ko'a da}, and
those of the form {GA [PA] da broda gi brode vau da}. I doubt the
designers had these cases in mind.

In both cases, the issue is that the "simplest answer" you mention
doesn't give an answer - I would replace the indicated "[PA]" with
{su'o} if it's empty, but then there's no answer to the question of
whether the second {da} is in the scope of the first. So should it also
get a {su'o} and hence be rebound on both arms of the connective? Or
only on one? I don't see that there's an obviously-correct answer.

Martin

--UugvWAfsgieZRqgk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk7braMACgkQULC7OLX7LNb17QCg5ubojxlkyb2pjq6oSzcJmJco
X0wAn0qlBhyG2UWzQSybVh/sqkb5d6FB
=3M1y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--UugvWAfsgieZRqgk--