Received: from mail-bw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.214.61]:64139)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCOsJT3BBoEz4w0Ng@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RZqOF-0007t0-3q; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:52:56 -0800
Received: by bkat2 with SMTP id t2sf17571678bka.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:52:47 -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=5ri1NoY5TMakGdZXtHlLxvED7xLhRuFq7GmMnbjWpzQ=;
        b=xMuAxZl0suuspS8XcRWE3t5Mc1u1hc0Ul26LJ0tVRMtTMOkeFkNDuUndG2wmMVig7A
         Cx9U2Cof4Vi/myN4iSssK2E9RVHkjt0Kp3y2N0tfPuCDmYnGCxyWA97/iExhNn0a8zzx
         8rMpyfin5trY8dKWt6mIAajuxjZnk//OIXtCE=
Received: by 10.204.39.196 with SMTP id h4mr1420206bke.11.1323636750733;
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:52:30 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.14.49.199 with SMTP id x47ls2176081eeb.4.gmail; Sun, 11 Dec
 2011 12:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.124.10 with SMTP id gm10mr515920bkc.8.1323636749633;
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.124.10 with SMTP id gm10mr515919bkc.8.1323636749616;
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:52:29 -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 c11si10420090bke.3.2011.12.11.12.52.29
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:52:29 -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 mail-lpp01m010-f48.google.com with SMTP id m7so845750laa.21
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:52:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.109.105 with SMTP id hr9mr6970636lab.24.1323636749342;
 Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:52:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.19.198 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Dec 2011 12:52:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1323633014.33678.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <1323373742.18817.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<CAO7tK2dghkmpansUrBCZY7HkcH0sBGWzDpv+d8hB7ge9MuV9Ag@mail.gmail.com>
	<C261B304-A8BC-4955-9016-72D1F24B5471@yahoo.com>
	<CAO7tK2eRL4D7Yy-Sz=JUcTtnwuyKt_tnBx9XjhRkzpgQmB2igw@mail.gmail.com>
	<857BF1E4-628A-4E05-BC02-A90D15C6895E@yahoo.com>
	<CAO7tK2eWxBL9QdUnunoDY63GTV82=aX+B+zsQDOFj3axED4fWg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1323554331.43014.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<CAO7tK2eiu5Haj+fz-GV4z+JaH6G+Vz9hQXt51_i4Yk4_kB35Uw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1323633014.33678.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 17:52:29 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cBXd4WP2DbHS8ZS2vbbHX8QCt5trg_9UxjNqHyAQiLTA@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 209.85.215.48 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: <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: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:50 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wro=
te:
>
>=A0At the least, there should be a process of
> converting FOL into Lojban that would justify the reverse reconstruction.

Converting FOL into Lojban is trivial.

But in addition to all the expressions obtained from converting FOL
into Lojban, Lojban has additional grammatical expressions (usually
more compact) not obtained directly by conversion from FOL but rather
from a set of arbitrary (but consistent) rules. These compact
expressions are declared to be equivalent to some other expression
obtained by direct conversion. This set of consistent but arbitrary
rules are what this thread is about. They cannot be justified by any
argument from logic because they do not arise out of anything to do
with logic. The compact expressions are there just for convenience,
not out of any logical necessity.


>>>intermediate constructions which are not to be taken too
>>> seriously (except that they usually are also sentences of Lojban) on th=
e 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.
>
> ?? "such intermediate construction" I suppose means "one that is not a Lo=
jban
> sentence".

I meant "one that is not to be taken seriously".

>Well, is there a guarantee that the rules will never lead to one on
> the way to a correct interpretation?

Of course. They are, by construction, all equivalent in meaning.

> (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 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 assume you mean (1) here, since that is what your convention selects.

Yes, sorry.

>>> I am not sure I understand your objection to the traditional solution t=
o
>> 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"
>
> Sorry, why doesn't it work? =A0For all donkeys x, for most farmers y who =
own x, y
> beats x.

Because that has a different meaning. Suppose there is one donkey that
is not beaten by any of its owners. Your proposed expansion is
obviously false, but the English "most farmers who own a donkey, beat
it" could still be true, no?

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.