Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 21:33:58 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales>
References: <20140927163121.GO28734@gonzales>
 <3c3b1c5e-cac2-42df-9d67-553a849789d3@googlegroups.com>
 <20140927192952.GS28734@gonzales>
 <bf1a257f-4b62-4d03-ad77-5bbfb1b91870@googlegroups.com>
 <20140927195841.GT28734@gonzales>
 <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7tK2c5fi5d+1Rc=1eXJEG_1a8QMeGe6Uy5psMYAWqkTO3ciQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Jsn5+Lu/ZvzbAGtZ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2c5fi5d+1Rc=1eXJEG_1a8QMeGe6Uy5psMYAWqkTO3ciQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: burcu
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=neutral
 (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
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>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


--Jsn5+Lu/ZvzbAGtZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Saturday, 2014-09-27 at 21:20 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:

> > On Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:59:15 PM UTC-4, Martin Bays wrote:
> >> ro da poi verba cu prami lo mamta be da
> >>
> >> FA x1:(verba(_)). mamta(f0(x1),x1)
> >> FA x1:(verba(_)). prami(x1,f0(x1))
> >>
> >> ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o mamta da
> >> .i ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u da prami li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o
> >>
> >
> Just as a matter of notation, couldn't you use "fyno pe da" instead of "li
> ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o"?
> It seems much more clear, would anything be lost by doing that?

The problem is that I would interpret {fyno pe da} compositionally:
fyno is a sumbasti which refers to something, and then the {pe da} is
interpreted in the way we discussed in the other thread the other week
(ko'a poi broda =3D=3D zo'e noi me ko'a gi'e broda), yielding:

> da du by pe da

FA x1. (srana(f0(x1),x1) /\ (b) >=3D (f0(x1)))
EX x1. =3D(x1,f0(x1))

ro da zo'u ge li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o srana da gi li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo=
'o me by me'u
=2Ei su'o da zo'u da du li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o


To make it work the way you suggest, we'd have to have sumbasti also
allowed to have non-constant references, and break the compositionality
of restrictive clauses (which admittedly is already broken in some other
cases, e.g. {da poi broda}). Do you think it could be made to work and
would be a good idea?

Martin

--Jsn5+Lu/ZvzbAGtZ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlQnZYYACgkQULC7OLX7LNZUvgCePU8+yAUMwsxCsYecl7VprPWi
80QAnRxKz1mWsyiWU+JIItsurH+wrjmH
=Wk2Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Jsn5+Lu/ZvzbAGtZ--