Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]:50355)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRDlvPP2BBoEn3vpow@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RXa9f-0007hL-3e; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:08:41 -0800
Received: by yenm12 with SMTP id m12sf6252224yen.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:08:24 -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=DgwXoQOCTFV/ZuTo2UUFOKhcLHefKMwvSFJnniMnrpg=;
        b=Jc70GTZdjah/IASb46iTHBEIz4K6gv3H/OrMlUilITnHqumd63aBVOZ7sEtin2BMY+
         LwTuFLq2w+yLE/JkqmeQcrwVgvHIeKvGZ92I4x5deVNkGYPEK/MZfY7eJe4zvfNuAGOn
         P+eMuYRIQ0swtyWlRRJBQB4FzD8mFY5OjZhEo=
Received: by 10.236.191.10 with SMTP id f10mr2290191yhn.5.1323097701875;
        Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:08:21 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.150.43.22 with SMTP id q22ls9547974ybq.7.gmail; Mon, 05 Dec
 2011 07:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.101.181.21 with SMTP id i21mr5638179anp.21.1323097701224;
        Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.101.181.21 with SMTP id i21mr5638178anp.21.1323097701199;
        Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm4-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm4-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.237.138])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id r38si6149714ano.2.2011.12.05.07.08.20;
        Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:08:21 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.138 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.138;
Received: from [66.94.237.127] by nm4.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Dec 2011 15:08:20 -0000
Received: from [66.94.237.112] by tm2.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Dec 2011 15:08:20 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1017.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Dec 2011 15:08:20 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 482913.58190.bm@omp1017.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 79451 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Dec 2011 15:08:20 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: RGXXmcYVM1nDd61N6OSVW06lLO9EBTjXJus2rGZw4WFn4B2
 qEGkDPanHJ2eO.yp_Ovzgt72MxCF5DPAebLwN8mKfd8YwSDCubo4h5cahMJj
 PEK4Fvq.y1LIvP4iIAvhDwlTZPTnmOBc2utfRGQUO9rccL6Dvhu6212AR2dx
 0bo6HSuZZyiR2FPJKpqCvHCjqI4WO63hOk542HLWRol5zuWJNfHJqW2nTA3B
 oBEoLSYbmPjOPEqxlxIp_WANvt0sYFQvzbsBA.bVfpy52oMM_w1hWVoGoGEM
 LTTab9TW6p08eUP9riKoaGsjfVIZLWhhkysn3n7Frt9BY2WDh2.0yOEvdK6h
 KrkX1ZkOEcXSNLImstVHB_8fjeDkLJK3k174kQCpsqYyQpYc22Ao8j.C1qWH
 LWxuIFOcne52Zg08mrweVik4HSMjIuEVOxWcVpYlR3E7JctfNrFO4E9zMV0I
 yl6fAB0HbSekRWGpxPLhG4sH1DrZkdSxXi21KN6my6nXBy5E9icfoMb8i5Mi
 K1ekG2D99fezu3gLq945snTAVZlRSacqkS04KUCRR
Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 07:08:20 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/589 YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.331698
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> <CAO7tK2ctfXMV6chvWKTLo+Rjbdgj0MdJdwQM62qN+meuT_8Ttg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1323097700.59133.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 07:08:20 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2ctfXMV6chvWKTLo+Rjbdgj0MdJdwQM62qN+meuT_8Ttg@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 66.94.237.138
 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: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

In the final analysis, variants of ijeks.



----- Original Message ----
From: Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 4, 2011 6:41:24 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1

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  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?

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=
=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.