Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:47133)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRC2pvD2BBoEOsDR9w@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RXMcj-0001eo-9r; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:41:44 -0800
Received: by bkcje16 with SMTP id je16sf1514772bkc.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:41:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to: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=R/U/QyODnobRMaKM+4V5hnh7vvPov186dah//PK12UY=;
        b=QaJaftkl4ffrig5TsC9LuvyLjYVYQSfs5GqeCIlH7eYbCw6I3lNgECHtSuWkSPPgYk
         qFuy/FZuDlVCEOACEpBP1JEX+rRfXILxD/r23KqbR8oGK41SQ8T4gl8rNit/THYImbHF
         0ts2oindXRqifyfzX3Aj4CbFFwa/iWGn9wgTU=
Received: by 10.204.152.143 with SMTP id g15mr35831bkw.10.1323045686667;
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:41:26 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.200.144 with SMTP id ew16ls5264858bkb.2.gmail; Sun, 04 Dec
 2011 16:41:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.133.197 with SMTP id hz5mr401185bkc.6.1323045685060;
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:41:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.133.197 with SMTP id hz5mr401184bkc.6.1323045685043;
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:41:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f42.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f42.google.com [209.85.215.42])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6si7286263bkv.1.2011.12.04.16.41.24
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:41:25 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.42;
Received: by lahc1 with SMTP id c1so304346lah.29
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:41:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.103.165 with SMTP id fx5mr4543746lab.38.1323045684654;
 Sun, 04 Dec 2011 16:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.19.198 with HTTP; Sun, 4 Dec 2011 16:41:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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>
	<20111204172803.GA3091@gonzales>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 21:41:24 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2ctfXMV6chvWKTLo+Rjbdgj0MdJdwQM62qN+meuT_8Ttg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.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: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Sunday, 2011-12-04 at 10:13 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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?

A different notation for bridi geks, yes. All logical connectives are
just more or less condensed variants of bridi geks.

> 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"?

Yes. For the other meaning we have: "ro da zo'u ga nai da muvdu gi ko
celgunta da". Or, if you want a more condensed version: "ro da muvdu
na gi'a se celgunta ko".

>> 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 =A0the 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?

Of course.

> Or
> only on one? I don't see that there's an obviously-correct answer.

If you have two things being connected, each of the things is under
the scope of the connective. I see no good reason for the semantics to
go against the syntax here.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=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.