Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 22:50:48 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141006025048.GE1974@gonzales>
References: <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2eST7Fj3qQa2DKrmfPP8pYQPToCQL7x7v8xWUqAn5FARQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2fS_pTD3snnSeQ4meDbrBhS_v8RCJvPvbEuLjXDhx-Drw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2f_GVeDL5Qukx1k+3wTg5aVcY+z4W6JjB=hF1JGHzwwAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2fdDnOG5OSU5wJ=MQaDMroy3Ht45WjkMnCKBG1o9ofUTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141005234958.GD1974@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2cr1GSJAsvyr_vCTPb_d-wwagdStfxA67NN4WbDzN80sw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZInfyf7laFu/Kiw7"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2cr1GSJAsvyr_vCTPb_d-wwagdStfxA67NN4WbDzN80sw@mail.gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: cumki
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: -


--ZInfyf7laFu/Kiw7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Sunday, 2014-10-05 at 22:33 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.co=
m>:

> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>=20
> Does "broda tu'a ko'a .e ko'e" become "ge broda tu'a ko'a gi broda tu'a
> ko'e" rather than "broda lo du'u ko'a .e ko'e co'e"?

Yes, I get the former.

> Within a decription? I would say "lo broda be ko'a .e ko'e" is "zo'e noi
> broda ko'a .e ko'e", and not "ge lo broda be ko'a gi lo broda be ko'e".

Good. Same here.

> Similarly for LAhE, which I take to be "lo broda be" for some suitable
> "broda".

Hmm, interesting. Yes, that does seem more useful.

Added to TODO!

> With li-expressions I'm less sure, since I don't have a clear grasp of the
> interface between mekso and the ordinary part of the language. Is "cy du =
li
> cy" always true, for example?

I don't think so. {cy} on its own is a sumbasti, probably referring some
lo cipni or similar. I think the mekso variable cy has to be entirely
separate to be of any use.

> > If I understand you correctly, you want special rules for what happens
> > when we parse a sumti with such logical information during the parsing
> > of a value: so rather than passing the actions of quantification and
> > connection up to the logic, they should be caught at the level of the
> > value and evaluated there. Right?
>=20
> Rather, the logic of connections/quantification, which always applies to
> propositions, intervenes in the description of the value and doesn't esca=
pe
> the description.

Hmm... so do you mean that you interpret {li pa} as corresponding to the
description "equals 1", and {li pa .e re} as corresponding to
"equals 1 and equals 2" (and hence an error)?

But you had {.e} yielding {jo'u}, so I guess that isn't right. Could you
explain in more detail?

> > Something analogous happens with sumtcita. Do you consider
> >     broda ca ro da
> > to mean something other than
> >     ro da zo'u broda ca da
> > (which is how tersmu currently handles it)?
>=20
> No, but that's because "ca" has scope over broda:
>=20
> broda ca ro da
> =3D ro da cabna lo nu broda
> =3D ro da zo'u da cabna lo nu broda
> =3D ro da zo'u broda ca da

Good. Sounds though like we might disagree on e.g.
    ca ja ba ro da broda
on which I get
    ga ro da ca da zo'u broda gi ro da ba da zo'u broda .
Would you get the quantifier having scope over the connective?

> > > The presupposition is that when you use "lo plise" there's
> > > something you are talking about, and that something is identified
> > > by their satisfying the predicate "plise". Kinds may be one
> > > candidate interpretation, especially with so little context.
> > What is the logical content of this presupposition? Not actually
> > a matter of uniqueness, presumably? Some sort of maximality?
>=20
> I think so, yes. I don't want to insist too much on that because its
> maximality within the universe of discourse, not some absolute maximality
> as suggested by the examples in CLL.

Sure.

So you mean that {lo plise} has to refer to Apple *if* Apple is in the
UD, but for contextual reasons it sometimes might not be? But when it
isn't, there does nonetheless have to be a unique maximal referent, or
else {lo plise} fails to refer?

--ZInfyf7laFu/Kiw7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlQyA4gACgkQULC7OLX7LNbMtwCfTgkamouBwTOVdeXTQcGXgedN
4ZMAn1wm2J35yJJ5EVXfuTJBiR+KGPvT
=Nl6r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ZInfyf7laFu/Kiw7--