Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:49222)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhCwwfD2BBoE66jcUg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RXNWL-0001wd-1X; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:39:15 -0800
Received: by dajx4 with SMTP id x4sf3704051daj.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:38:58 -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=9bb7/NM1abFBkxnamtsV91oZq/1s3HK9I6f+JnqMwCY=;
        b=3mm3A7nWotYT4taR9AC8q8HO1UkvzKr/bZAFqTXWytYVTfGvdfO85t6Let57SJ77g7
         VWG90tDl3yIP+ymz/sWmFSpiNGeA7T0ZLIWSxRVj6O2nV0wC9W+xQlfQ/5uiT2O+Vcqo
         8RqScFoT6EMFeDhjkOaCFnPxw5V4xJat7Lo1Q=
Received: by 10.68.14.72 with SMTP id n8mr310815pbc.14.1323049136009;
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:38:56 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.26.8 with SMTP id h8ls21718297pbg.1.gmail; Sun, 04 Dec 2011
 17:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr19930912pbc.3.1323049135295;
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.15.41 with SMTP id u9mr19930910pbc.3.1323049135286;
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x5si15473602pbb.1.2011.12.04.17.38.55
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 04 Dec 2011 17:38:55 -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 pB51csC5017325
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 01:38:54 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RXNWA-0005LY-AS
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 20:38:54 -0500
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 20:38:54 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Message-ID: <20111205013854.GB10776@gonzales>
References: <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>
 <CAO7tK2ctfXMV6chvWKTLo+Rjbdgj0MdJdwQM62qN+meuT_8Ttg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2ctfXMV6chvWKTLo+Rjbdgj0MdJdwQM62qN+meuT_8Ttg@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: matne
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: /


--6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Sunday, 2011-12-04 at 21:41 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.co=
m>:

> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >> 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?
> >> [...]
> >> 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?
>=20
> Of course.
>=20
> > Or only on one? I don't see that there's an obviously-correct
> > answer.
>=20
> 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.

I don't understand.

The question I had in mind is whether
{ge broda ro da gi brode vau da} is equivalent to
(i) {ge broda ro da gi brode vau su'o da} =3D=3D
    {ge ro da su'o de zo'u broda da de gi su'o da zo'u brode da}
or to
(ii) {ge broda ro da da gi brode da} =3D=3D
    {ge ro da zo'u broda da da gi su'o da zo'u brode da}

; I understand you as advocating (i) and declaring (ii) to be obviously
wrong, but I don't understand why you consider (ii) to be going against
the syntax.

Martin

--6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAk7cIK4ACgkQULC7OLX7LNZ0AQCgiZ05BZBRooSwWVZpLxPrcPnB
hI0AnRv4zN4KCTyPp4LozcPLY/pWaYUX
=O9Jk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6sX45UoQRIJXqkqR--