Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:48959) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RZoLo-0007O7-G4; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:42:17 -0800 Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf16318016bka.16 for ; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:42:09 -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=MEzYgunrhsR2lPq8RCDgacGaJPC9us6ultODna6ozVU=; b=UbelrwxM8QQRz2A9l4qzrAZq1r8rzK1bPBdfOKIlEK3mvgfpifho8BFct1STCQWrdJ yESXzfARqh0VsNFHQEx6mOF17NOx5fK07KXH/dis76+9mgstJb5ArtOfb8itUsWk/mgY LkSWuw1sgRcmSovYcXbGsBOEGEQzdgRNB6sgk= Received: by 10.204.154.76 with SMTP id n12mr1991972bkw.21.1323628924992; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:42:04 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.200.144 with SMTP id ew16ls17260929bkb.2.gmail; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:42:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.205.136.10 with SMTP id ii10mr1021933bkc.7.1323628923908; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:42:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.205.136.10 with SMTP id ii10mr1021932bkc.7.1323628923889; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:42:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f48.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f48.google.com [209.85.215.48]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 6si10158709bkv.1.2011.12.11.10.42.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:42:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.48; Received: by laam7 with SMTP id m7so487643laa.7 for ; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:42:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.146.100 with SMTP id tb4mr10275283lab.0.1323628923453; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:42:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.19.198 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 10:42:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1323554331.43014.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1323373742.18817.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

<857BF1E4-628A-4E05-BC02-A90D15C6895E@yahoo.com> <1323554331.43014.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:42:03 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= 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 209.85.215.48 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 6:58 PM, John E Clifford wro= te: > Well, I am glad you know that quantifiers don't refer, since then you can > understand my discomfort at seeing them treated as though they do: like n= ames, > in fact. Quantifier terms are treated by the Lojban grammar just like names, yes, even though they have different functions, names refer and quantifier terms quantify bridi. >=A0To be sure, at a certain point (prenexing usually), they receive some > different treatment, as they pass through negations and the like (or don'= t, as > the case need be). They receive different treatment at the point of interpretation. Names can be moved to the prenex too, but the rules by which quantifier terms can be moved to the prenex are more strict than for names. The only reason to have these rules at all is that once they are in the prenex the interpretation is plain, as it corresponds directly to standard notation. >=A0But, while they don't refer, they do have a set of true > instances and these are often dependent upon quantifiers in whose scope t= hey > lie. That statement is problematic. It may be understandable when the quantifier term binds the last free variable of a bridi, but it doesn't really make sense when the quantifier term leaves some variable still unbound. P(x) has a set of true instances for "x", and the quantifier Ex: tells us that the cardinality of that set is at least one. But Ex:P(x,y), with y still unbound, has no set of true instances for x, since it is not a proposition. It has a (possibly different) set of true instances for x for each different value of y. So for y=3Da we have one set of true instances of x, for y=3Db another set, and so on. The only meaningful set of true instances of x that you can get for "Ex:P(x,y)" is the one that consists of the union of all the sets that you get for each possible value of y. And that set could even be empty, if ~Ey: Ex:(Px,y) happened to be true. So "Ex:" tells us nothing about the cardinality of the union set. >=A0Thus, the {su'o plise} of your example appears to lie in the scope of t= wo > universals (I'm ignoring the negation for the moment, since it doesn't af= fect > the issue) and to have the corresponding true instances. It's in the scope of two universals, plus the negation you are ignoring, plus a connective, and what's more important, it binds a formula with two free variables, which means that it gives no information about the cardinality of any single set. >=A0But the intention is > that it have two instance sets, one for each quantifier: the hybrid set i= s > neither of these (probably). Whose intention is that? > So this makes the sentence seem strange. =A0Your > claim is that the sentence ought not be taken at face value, but understo= od as > the result of applying a fairly simple (so far, anyhow) set of interpreta= tion > rules. I don't think I made such claim, mainly because I don't understand what you mean by "taking the sentence at face value". If I had to make a claim, I would say that it ought indeed be taken at face value, and I explained what that face value meant to me. If by "face value" you mean "what it means in standard notation", then the sentence has no face value at all since it involves non-standard notation, it is uninterpretable as standard notation, and thus it cannot possibly be taken at face value. If you see some other face value I'm not seeing, what is it? >=A0And (so far, at least) these rules do regularly yield the right > results. =A0But then the question is, how else are these rules justified? What kind of justification are you after? If it's something involving a set of true instances, you need to make that notion more explicit, since a bridi with more than one variable does not have a well defined single set of true instances for one of the variables. >=A0They > seem to have no basis in logic, probably because they deal with structure= s logic > does not allow, That's unavoidable, isn't it? >intermediate constructions which are not to be taken too > seriously (except that they usually are also sentences of Lojban) on the = way to > the final results. Which intermediate construction is not to be taken too seriously? If there was such intermediate construction, the whole thing falls apart. The whole point of the rules is that there be no gaps in moving from the non-standard form to the standard one. >=A0I can hope that eventually a Montague grammar will come > along to justify moves that accomplish the same results in a rationalized= way. > Until then, success is probably good enough =A0-- and may always be. =A0B= ut it does > not present much in the way of guidelines when difficulties arise. It's not so complicated. The only two reasonable options for "ko'a .e ko'e broda su'o da" are: (1) ge su'o da zo'u ko'a da broda gi su'o da zo'u ko'e da broda (2) su'o da zo'u ge ko'a da broda gi ko'e da broda The choice between the two is ultimately arbitrary, purely a matter of convention. You can't expect the compact form to have some intrinsic "face value" that tells you which one of them it is, it's merely a matter of knowing whether ".e" has scope over "su'o" or viceversa. In a natlang, we just live with the ambiguity. In Lojban, we don't want that kind of ambiguity and so, by convention, decide that the compact form corresponds to one and not the other. The only justification we may add for the choice is which one makes the whole system nicer, and in my view that means choosing (2) simply because I think it's better to stick with left over right scope. What possible justification beyond that are you looking for? > I am not sure I understand your objection to the traditional solution to = donkey > sentences. =A0Do you know of cases where it just doesn't work? Changing a narrow scope existential into a wide scope universal? And already mentioned cases where that doesn't work: "most farmers who own a donkey, beat it" >=A0The non-quantifier > case is handled nicely by analogy: "Each of Mary and Jane is such that th= ose who > love her want to marry her." That's why I brought up the example, to support that connectives should be treated the same way as quantifiers. 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.