Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.52.248 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.52.248;
References: <1323373742.18817.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2dghkmpansUrBCZY7HkcH0sBGWzDpv+d8hB7ge9MuV9Ag@mail.gmail.com> <C261B304-A8BC-4955-9016-72D1F24B5471@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <C261B304-A8BC-4955-9016-72D1F24B5471@yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4)
Message-Id: <8787398E-31DB-469E-8B9A-B09C4EF35972@yahoo.com>
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 18:56:24 -0600
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

I am a little slow at this, but it finally. --  after forty-odd years -- da=
wns on me that the fact that apparently ad hoc rules work for accounting fo=
r the movement between logic and language is the reason for Montague gramma=
r, which has wonderfully rational rules which merely happen to have surpris=
ing results, whereas the present system jumps directly from one surprising =
result to another.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 8, 2011, at 5:39 PM, "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote=
:

> I suppose my point is just that, when we make all these claims about bein=
g logical ( even in the narrow sense), one expects that the way that senten=
ces are constructed has some rational connection to the logic below, not ju=
st helper smelter rules which happen to work, in some practical sense.  So,=
 what I sketched briefly was one case of trying to make such a rule, where =
the sentences clearly meant the same thing from beginning to end, not just =
ending up right.  As I  say later, such rules may not be possible, but they=
 do deserve a look.
>=20
> As for what is ignored, the list in this case is fairly short: binding, i=
nstantiation, and role.  The one particular quantifier is governed by two u=
niversals ( more or less), which means it's instantiation has to take both =
into account, while in the final analysis, the two particular quantifiers a=
re each governed by a single quantifier and needs only to take that into ac=
count.  Neither of the two ultimate instantiations would be the one the sin=
gle case would give,  and, while you may say that the quantifier expression=
s are not terms, they are certainly treated as such (the claim that that th=
ey can't shift positions doesn't enter here, nor, I would think, in analysi=
s generally);they are, after all, joined just like names, not the overarchi=
ng structural elements the are ( ultimately).=20
>=20
> Yes, every particular quantifier ( and universal, for that matter) is the=
 same in function, but surely not in content, a {su'o plise} in one sentenc=
e points to different apples from that in another sentence. And similarly f=
or a universal, if we are restricting our domain to just the immediately re=
levant groups, as seems to be the (unacknowledged) case here.
>=20
> Sent from my iPad
>=20
> On Dec 8, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>=20
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:49 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> w=
rote:
>>> Yes, I rather thought those were the rules you were using (or something=
 like),
>>> so what I am talking about is not a step backward so much as a step alo=
ng a
>>> different path.
>>=20
>> Show the path already, then.
>>=20
>>> Loglan claims to be a logical language, FOL spoken, with all a
>>> sentence's  logical properties on the surface -- or as near as makes no=
 never
>>> mind.
>>=20
>> Indeed, at least for the logical core of the language. And that's what
>> Martin and I were concerned with.
>>=20
>>> We spend a lot of time worrying about, for example, what quantifier bin=
ds
>>> what variable or within whose scope a certain item lies.
>>=20
>> Right.
>>=20
>>> But when it comes to
>>> cashing in on this claim, to reconstructing the underlying FOL sentence=
, all of
>>> that is ignored.
>>=20
>> Huh?
>>=20
>>> replaced by the crudest sort categorization, basically, "If it
>>> looks the same, it is the same."
>>=20
>> The quantifier "su'o" is always the same, yes.
>>=20
>>> Happily, apparently the same sort of rules
>>> work in constructing a Lojban sentence from from FOL and so everything =
works out
>>> all right.
>>=20
>> Indeed.
>>=20
>>> Except, of course, the claim that logical structure is on the
>>> sentence's face.
>>=20
>> How is it not?
>>=20
>>> To take the sentence you offer as an example, {ro nanla .enai ro nixli =
cu citka
>>> so'u plise}, presumably from something like {ro nanla cu citka su'o pli=
se
>>> .ijenai ro nixli cu citka su'o plise}
>>=20
>> Yes.
>>=20
>>> and ultimately from {ro da poi nanlu ku'o
>>> su'o de poi plise zo'u da citka de ,i je nai ro di poi nixli ko'u su'o =
da poi
>>> plise zo'u di citka da}.
>>=20
>> That's ungrammatical, but if you add a couple of tu'e-tu'u, or switch
>> to "ge ... ginai ...", yes.
>=20
> Sorry, this reads out fine, both with and without the {je}.  Probably I h=
ave an old parser.
>=20
>>=20
>>> The first move then is folding the quantifiers in to
>>> their active places -- not really a problem in this case, but a source =
of
>>> several possible ones.
>>=20
>> Tell us about those problems, then! The first move is about expanding
>> an ek into an ijek (it would be better to do it with geks, but you can
>> do it with ijeks too if you are careful). What possible problems do
>> you see, and what alternative rule do you propose, given that Lojban
>> has eks (which are not part of standard notation) and they need to be
>> dealt with somehow.
>>=20
> Well, of course, I am not thrilled with the multitude of versions of the =
logical connectives, but, since we have sliced and diced the sentence so ma=
ny ways, surely distinguishing between a quantifier phrase and a name can c=
laim as much right to have it's own connective as bridi tails and some othe=
r odd items.  Except, I suppose, that this lumping together never gives a w=
rong analysis in the end, whereas confusing a tanru internal connective wit=
h a predicate one does.
>=20
>>> Next, all these infolded quantifiers are taken as though
>>> they were fixed terms (which is a problem), the names of a bunch of boy=
s
>>> "all-boys", a bunch of girls "not all girls"
>>=20
>> Not at all. If they were fixed terms they could be moved freely
>> around, but they are not. They are bridi operators and therefore their
>> position in the sentence is crucial. They are indeed the same bridi
>> operator every time they appear, just like "na ku" is the same
>> operator every time it appears, and just like "ge ... gi ..." is the
>> same operator every time it appears. Is that what worries you? Do you
>> think "su'o da poi plise zo'u" could be a different operator each
>> time?
>>=20
> I find this question to ambiguous to deal with easily, but see my comment=
s earlier about instantiations.=20
>=20
>>> (note the negation sign has here
>>> been reassigned as part of the quantifier)
>>=20
>> Who has done that? Do you think it's a problem? I'm not sure if the
>> parenthetical was meant as criticism or merely as a description of
>> what you were doing. "ge ... gi nai ro da zo'u..." is of course
>> equivalent to "ge ... gi na ku ro da zo'u ..." which in turn is
>> equivalent to "ge ... gi me'i da zo'u ...", so the move of the
>> negation from the connective to the quantifier would be quite
>> legitimate, even though I had not done that in my expansions.
>>=20
> The objection is, of course, to burying a negation ( another structural e=
lement) in a term, a non-structural element.
>=20
>>> and two groups of apples, both called
>>> "some apples", though not necessarily the same.
>>=20
>> There are no groups of apples involved at all. There is only the bridi
>> operator "su'o da poi plise zo'u" appplied two times. The domain of
>> this quantifier is the restriction from everything in the domain of
>> discourse to those things that satisfy the predicate "plise".
>=20
> Well, sometimes two ( each under a single quantifier)  and sometimes one =
(under two quantifiers).  In either each case the have different result, ev=
en if the same function.
>>=20
>>> The two groups of apples can
>>> now be identified (by the rule above) and the two quantifiers, being ju=
st terms,
>>> can now be joined termally.
>>=20
>> What two groups of apples?
>>=20
>>> But the two apple "terms" are not the same
>>=20
>> Why not?
>>=20
>>> and the
>>> two quantifier "terms" are not terms (nor are the apple "terms"); they =
are all
>>> sentential operators, binding later terms.
>>=20
>> Exactly so, they are not terms! They are two instances of one and the
>> same sentential operator, just like two instances of "na ku" would be
>> two instances of one and the same sentential operator. (They are
>> "terms" only in the sense that Lojban's formal grammar calls them
>> that, but that's just Lojban being sloppy with technical terms as
>> usual.)
>>=20
> Except that quantifiers, unlike negations, introduce references to things=
.
> "'
>>> At this point it is not clear how
>>> Lojban offers any real advantages over English vis a vis the underlying=
 logic.
>>=20
>> I still can't identify what it is that bothers you.
>>=20
>>> I personally wouldn't flinch at expanding {ganai su'o nanla cu klama gi=
 ro lo
>>> nixli cu kandansu ra} as {ro da zo'u ganai da ge nanla gi klama gi ro l=
o nixli
>>> cu kandasu da}, as it would be in English.
>>=20
>> That involves a donkey pronoun, and we don't as yet have spelled out
>> proper rules to handle them. This is not part of the kind of unpacking
>> rules we were discussing.
>>=20
> But it is just the kind of rule that needs to be discussed.  Does Lojban =
allow donkey sentences or not.  As you seem to have set up the rules at the=
 moment, it apparently does not, so no more need Bessie.  But I expect some=
one to produce one any day now and be unhappy if it comes out meaning "if a=
 boy comes, all the girls will dance with somebody or other"
> '
>>> I suspect that this abomination is essential to making a language anyon=
e can
>>> speak, but I think we should moderate our boasting a bit in recognition=
 of the
>>> fact that we don't in fact do what we often claim.
>>=20
>> Be that as it may, it's not what this discussion was about.
>>=20
> True enough; it is just a passing remark that might conceivably relevant =
to your project, since it bears on what you claim to be doing in the light =
of the usual Lojban ads.
>> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>>=20
>> --=20
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group=
s "lojban" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googleg=
roups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/loj=
ban?hl=3Den.
>>=20
>=20
> --=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@googlegr=
oups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb=
an?hl=3Den.
>=20

--=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.