Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140928160229.GD28734@gonzales>
References: <CACf3dPniWPENbiHT=EsTHGTApOOx5duQgo5SxZevF=FM7jUnqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACf3dPnptiNra7pU3dyuC7-Mhm-T6_mpyP92SNs1GXy+Roo+dw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140928160229.GD28734@gonzales>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 20:17:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CACf3dPnGDFq5WKGzOY_yBejZ3N94biNgR5abSFBnSOehfO+-Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: {da poi} (was: Re: tersmu 0.2
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: 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: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb208bcda9cfd05042500db
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--e89a8fb208bcda9cfd05042500db
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 28 Sep 2014 17:03, "Martin Bays" <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> * Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 12:35 +0100 - And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>
> > On 28 Sep 2014 12:04,and.rosta@gmail.comwrote:
> > > On 28 Sep 2014 02:34, "Martin Bays" <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > > > the compositionality of restrictive clauses (which admittedly is
> > > > already broken in some other cases, e.g. {da poi broda}).
> > >
> > > I agree {da poi} looks broken. What are the remedies? (1) To allow
> > > noncompositional idioms? (2) To define /poi/ as an allomorph of /noi/
in
> > > this syntactic environment? (3) To accept that, given the internal
logic of
> > > the language, {da poi} as habitually used is simply wrong? (4) To
seek and
> > > find a consistent definition for {poi} and {noi} such that {da poi}
usage
> > > becomes correct?
>
> Some other possibilities:
> (5) change the grammar to match the semantics, taking variable out of
> sumti6, and having restrictive relatives allowed only where there's
> a matching place for a quantifier;
> (6) note that doing (5) wouldn't actually render anything ungrammatical,
> so treat the existing grammar as a kind of shorthand for that in (5),
> and so consider current handling to be "effectively compositional".

If {X poi broda cu brode} = {lo me X gi'e broda cu brode} and {X noi broda
cu brode} = {X broda gi'e ...... brode}, then neither strike me as
appropriate for restricted quantification. To get at the underlying logic
of {so'e broda cu brode}, it seems to me you need something like {lo du'u
ke'a broda kei so'e zei so'e lo du'u ke'a brode}, where {so'e zei so'e} is
an ad hoc selbri counterpart of so'e, and which xorxes would surely want to
simplify to {lo broda cu so'e zei so'e lo brode}. (This is similar to but
less adequate than the solution I got introduced into Xorban.)

So if there is a compositional interpretation for {da poi}, can you gently
and not too technically spell it out for me?

> > I realize I was too hasty. Modifying a constant, X poi/noi broda both
mean
> > "me X" & "broda", differing in the scopal position of "broda", local for
> > poi and outermost (in the entire logical form) for noi.
>
> I think {ko'a noi broda} really involves the claim {ko'a broda}, not
> {lo me ko'a cu broda}.

Yes, on reflection I agree, tho does it make a difference?

>
> > Modifying a variable, that cannot be the difference. I had been
> > assuming that noi modifying a variable would have outermost scopal
> > position within the domain in which the variable is bound.
>
> Hmm, that makes some sense. I have been taking, ever since xorxes told
> me off for doing otherwise in the first release, incidentals to be
> truly incidental, having no effect on the truth value of the main
> proposition. So a {noi} on a variable yields a side claim entirely
> outside the scope of the corresponding quantifier, so involving an
> unbound variable, which I'm currently (fairly arbitrarily) handling by
> universally quantifying it out over whatever domain it was originally
> quantified over, so e.g. {du su'o da poi broda zi'e noi brode} -> {ro da
> poi broda zo'u da brode .i su'o da poi broda zo'u du da}.

It seems to me that my suggestion better yields a single rule that applies
consistently to all cases. E.g. {ro broda  noi brodo na brode} = {ro broda
ku brodo gi'e na brode}.

--And.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--e89a8fb208bcda9cfd05042500db
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On 28 Sep 2014 17:03, &quot;Martin Bays&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mbays@s=
df.org">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; * Sunday, 2014-09-28 at 12:35 +0100 - And Rosta &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
and.rosta@gmail.com">and.rosta@gmail.com</a>&gt;:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; On 28 Sep 2014 12:04,<a href=3D"mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com">and.r=
osta@gmail.com</a>wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; On 28 Sep 2014 02:34, &quot;Martin Bays&quot; &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:mbays@sdf.org">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; the compositionality of restrictive clauses (which admi=
ttedly is<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; already broken in some other cases, e.g. {da poi broda}=
).<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; I agree {da poi} looks broken. What are the remedies? (1) To=
 allow<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; noncompositional idioms? (2) To define /poi/ as an allomorph=
 of /noi/ in<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; this syntactic environment? (3) To accept that, given the in=
ternal logic of<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; the language, {da poi} as habitually used is simply wrong? (=
4) To seek and<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; find a consistent definition for {poi} and {noi} such that {=
da poi} usage<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; becomes correct?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Some other possibilities:<br>
&gt; (5) change the grammar to match the semantics, taking variable out of<=
br>
&gt; sumti6, and having restrictive relatives allowed only where there&#39;=
s<br>
&gt; a matching place for a quantifier;<br>
&gt; (6) note that doing (5) wouldn&#39;t actually render anything ungramma=
tical,<br>
&gt; so treat the existing grammar as a kind of shorthand for that in (5),<=
br>
&gt; and so consider current handling to be &quot;effectively compositional=
&quot;.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">If {X poi broda cu brode} =3D {lo me X gi&#39;e broda cu bro=
de} and {X noi broda cu brode} =3D {X broda gi&#39;e ...... brode}, then ne=
ither strike me as appropriate for restricted quantification. To get at the=
 underlying logic of {so&#39;e broda cu brode}, it seems to me you need som=
ething like {lo du&#39;u ke&#39;a broda kei so&#39;e zei so&#39;e lo du&#39=
;u ke&#39;a brode}, where {so&#39;e zei so&#39;e} is an ad hoc selbri count=
erpart of so&#39;e, and which xorxes would surely want to simplify to {lo b=
roda cu so&#39;e zei so&#39;e lo brode}. (This is similar to but less adequ=
ate than the solution I got introduced into Xorban.)</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">So if there is a compositional interpretation for {da poi}, =
can you gently and not too technically spell it out for me?</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; &gt; I realize I was too hasty. Modifying a constant, X=
 poi/noi broda both mean<br>
&gt; &gt; &quot;me X&quot; &amp; &quot;broda&quot;, differing in the scopal=
 position of &quot;broda&quot;, local for<br>
&gt; &gt; poi and outermost (in the entire logical form) for noi.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I think {ko&#39;a noi broda} really involves the claim {ko&#39;a broda=
}, not<br>
&gt; {lo me ko&#39;a cu broda}.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Yes, on reflection I agree, tho does it make a difference?</=
p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Modifying a variable, that cannot be the difference. I had been<b=
r>
&gt; &gt; assuming that noi modifying a variable would have outermost scopa=
l<br>
&gt; &gt; position within the domain in which the variable is bound.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Hmm, that makes some sense. I have been taking, ever since xorxes told=
<br>
&gt; me off for doing otherwise in the first release, incidentals to be<br>
&gt; truly incidental, having no effect on the truth value of the main<br>
&gt; proposition. So a {noi} on a variable yields a side claim entirely<br>
&gt; outside the scope of the corresponding quantifier, so involving an<br>
&gt; unbound variable, which I&#39;m currently (fairly arbitrarily) handlin=
g by<br>
&gt; universally quantifying it out over whatever domain it was originally<=
br>
&gt; quantified over, so e.g. {du su&#39;o da poi broda zi&#39;e noi brode}=
 -&gt; {ro da<br>
&gt; poi broda zo&#39;u da brode .i su&#39;o da poi broda zo&#39;u du da}.<=
/p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">It seems to me that my suggestion better yields a single rul=
e that applies consistently to all cases. E.g. {ro broda=C2=A0 noi brodo na=
 brode} =3D {ro broda ku brodo gi&#39;e na brode}.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">--And.</p>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--e89a8fb208bcda9cfd05042500db--