Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]:33294)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRC0q5n3BBoE2UpcxA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RaBXf-0001mb-RG; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:28:09 -0800
Received: by ghbg2 with SMTP id g2sf9716034ghb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:27:52 -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;
        bh=2Xpz9TYQWCJG5scvGBhtspdL0l+a8UQfRTiU5Da6j8k=;
        b=Si8G0dN/Pgut4xkZqZM9MDWhT0bveNyr90FvOWsAvC6rAUCSrVwKCSMmLnJ2sawn2N
         4C/Xblw4CM57QIqS9ZHDtRhvOqMbuDzfxr9AXeePZ589lbnqkR+lr31oC7/8zG7N+fCz
         3nLtXC+lOBpCzlPbEq2HF9+Tqp4C4U58+/RXg=
Received: by 10.236.176.103 with SMTP id a67mr7289943yhm.7.1323718068423;
        Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:27:48 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.150.29.29 with SMTP id c29ls6401490ybc.2.gmail; Mon, 12 Dec
 2011 11:27:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.193.10 with SMTP id q10mr3826247anf.44.1323718067774;
        Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:27:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.193.10 with SMTP id q10mr3826246anf.44.1323718067756;
        Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:27:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nm5-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm5-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com. [66.94.237.155])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id e44si5099787yhk.0.2011.12.12.11.27.47;
        Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:27:47 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.155 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.155;
Received: from [66.94.237.200] by nm5.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Dec 2011 19:27:47 -0000
Received: from [66.94.237.120] by tm11.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Dec 2011 19:27:47 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1025.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Dec 2011 19:27:47 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 480598.18022.bm@omp1025.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 39950 invoked by uid 60001); 12 Dec 2011 19:27:47 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: QZ1unQ4VM1kSHWpUpaUEwnnySdBPml.fk_3qgvHrG8zDna4
 BpG0pu3y4v_X2JWIuoSo71GUQsUX9m4GAPy1t6.RwTRAc9tvVMCqnep.teJ3
 cHfpzbzKcTQJf2Prupixc1abHfbWo6NmbVJ4WhPmPPNJ8.RwruZL_76YsKiD
 cAHxdVg7DEb7IW7q_sWV6qCJMxyLVOYlm9KKF4lL56SVS28qcaHypQKaQIyz
 etV1QZFrH_gZLVK9.zQtSRVKy.oMdMpckVk7x2mMIt9gAO85weOnb0EGp1TV
 lPp0LoT3brQlil3xZrpL1tdKgEcMXFFyxLz96PXEcVOgU.n4s4nyEVwTi_Ww
 93o5svw2VN6yyKtYlJVyWnZ7legZMMJ1HK0p9e48v5l.zSuCxbpYuyQGjWyV
 BWggc8VMIvACCgZBz_L_3myYI12DoXbQ4ShdwvcW8UaIWxZ5JhwcpeTmKkyB
 XU5U-
Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:27:47 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/589 YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.331698
References: <CAO7tK2eiu5Haj+fz-GV4z+JaH6G+Vz9hQXt51_i4Yk4_kB35Uw@mail.gmail.com> <1323633014.33678.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2cBXd4WP2DbHS8ZS2vbbHX8QCt5trg_9UxjNqHyAQiLTA@mail.gmail.com> <5291628E-3707-4DE5-9EEE-7FD3772C3F96@yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2ekm2A+AU9aa8jS-tzrae1VF0Hb8eB30K1j=5qcPZypTA@mail.gmail.com> <1323660683.21871.YahooMailRC@web81302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <4EE576E4.60308@gmail.com> <AF87551F-C30D-4F73-BD01-4B5A4C306C21@yahoo.com> <20111212162400.GA11272@gonzales> <1323714370.76209.YahooMailRC@web81301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20111212185344.GB29266@gonzales>
Message-ID: <1323718067.31275.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:27:47 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <20111212185344.GB29266@gonzales>
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 66.94.237.155
 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
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

The reason for wanting to have a real grammar of Lojban hardly seems to need 
explaining; why would we want less?  Especially given our claims about it all 
being spoken logic (of some sort, at least).  For that "logic" we might need 
more quantifiers than Lojban has at present, but the ones it does have are a 
good start.  And, of course, there is the shift to an intensional logic which is 
absolutely required (and ought, I suppose, to already be part of your back 
translating program).  Eventually, of course, pragmatics has to enter in -- in 
elisions and anaphora if nowhere else -- but that is also a part of any useful 
reconstruction, so not a new idea.  And, of course, there is the notion 
(untested) that the real grammar of Lojban will be much simpler than that of any 
natural language.



----- Original Message ----
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 12, 2011 12:53:45 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1

* Monday, 2011-12-12 at 10:26 -0800 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:

> Well, once again, it is trivial to get some Lojban sentence for each FOL 
> sentence; the trick is to get every legitimate expression of that FOL 
>sentence.  
>

Ah! Yes, that's harder. Unclear why you'd want to do it, although
finding the *shortest* lojban sentence expressing a given FOL sentence
is a reasonable problem. If we talk literally just about FOL, that
shouldn't be too difficult, as the fragment of lojban which corresponds
to FOL is quite small and easy enough to understand (modulo minor
controversy regarding some edge cases, as discussed in this thread).

> Or, in other words, a grammar that explains every Lojban sentence in terms of 
> FOL (well, I am ready to concede this may be SOL and that, of course, very 
> extended).  In particular, it has been noted, non-standard quantifiers (like 
> "most" and "few", say) and restricted quantifiers present problems at the 
>lowest 
>
> level -- what is a rational way to derive them from logic (or how must we 
>expand 
>
> our notion of logic to make a derivation, if not trivial, then at least 
> rational). 

Extending FOL with generalised quantifiers corresponding exactly to
those in lojban seems the obviously correct thing to do.

Giving semantics and proof theory for the resulting logic is a separate
issue, and I don't think we should expect anything very clean or
complete (because pragmatics is crucial to understanding e.g. "most").

Martin

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, December 12, 2011 10:24:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
> 
> * Monday, 2011-12-12 at 09:16 -0600 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> 
> > Well, point one goes against orthodoxy for languages in general and
> > certainly for Lojban in particular.  Point two is generally true, but
> > much harder is not impossible.  In general, the move from FOL to
> > Lojban ought to seem easier than the reverse, but even that may be
> > illusory.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. FOL to Lojban is entirely
> trivial. Assuming a relational language and that every relation is
> the interpretation of some selbri: use {su'o da zo'u} and {ro da zo'u}
> for the quantifiers, and use geks for the boolean operations. There are
> no issues at all.
> 
> Martin
> 
> > On Dec 11, 2011, at 9:37 PM, vitci'i <celestialcognition@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 12/11/2011 09:31 PM, John E Clifford wrote:
> > >> Wait.  If we have a means of converting FOL into Lojban, it has -- to be 
> > >> acceptable -- to provide a rule for a means of converting some logical 
> > >> expression into each Lojban sentence.  So, in particular, it has to 
>provide 
>
> >a 
> >
> > >> systematic explanation for even those sentences which are problematic to 
>the 
>
> >
> > >> back conversion.
> > > 
> > > That doesn't follow. There may be some well-formed Lojban expressions
> > > that are not produced by converting any FOL expression. Alternatively,
> > > there exist some relations which are much harder to compute in one
> > > direction than the other.
> > > 
> > > -- 

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.