Received: from mail-pa0-f62.google.com ([209.85.220.62]:46785) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XcvxP-0001LT-I0 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 05:39:42 -0700 Received: by mail-pa0-f62.google.com with SMTP id et14sf576341pad.7 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 05:39:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=subject:references:from:in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:mime-version :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CvEdxq8e6lN4/V71dAbE/Diq6xGpnnIuL9Ob87iIie8=; b=O9Gl4WlFVTVkH3hm+E47E2Z6Qpt8mQkVrmhUOW+CqV8Ht5vbfTtxBeKtiquzHzF35R 34jGlix5bI+vWLzOHfzkxA9RTMB7Qq2OiKXQ9EBn72LqZ7t0xLpPDlVcgQ/BU7nEQF3/ AsKbI7USwsm2s6PtmeNe9fcfR5Trs6jQ/XNHfHnvkHxYV2LvAuyCuLuDQGF4+QhX/Rkv alXt1Ck1ab+nOyGobYHa4YKcWuhpTBAFVZW7qIAcueXzu6Pr4wAExw3Mhhz6xKlU42fU +I+0h+XoKve/mWJlqtjAf01PZTd3LsmDkkY015HV4pgbH7K+KJkgZLkZLkbV1YHK5iFr ekcw== X-Received: by 10.50.79.230 with SMTP id m6mr127311igx.5.1413031169208; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 05:39:29 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.67.107 with SMTP id m11ls1003466igt.36.gmail; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 05:39:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.222.100 with SMTP id ql4mr2849476pac.32.1413031168807; Sat, 11 Oct 2014 05:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm7-vm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm7-vm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.91.137]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gy6si827887igb.1.2014.10.11.05.39.28 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 11 Oct 2014 05:39:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.137 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.137; Received: from [98.138.100.118] by nm7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Oct 2014 12:39:28 -0000 Received: from [98.138.84.45] by tm109.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Oct 2014 12:39:28 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp113.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 11 Oct 2014 12:39:28 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 320185.29680.bm@smtp113.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: yHrVMtwVM1nelegRy3ehapFXM3agA8i69bwxHEiIyfyq8j8 nHH64z3GjI9zrpozMGOnOjo5xGCD0DWJQFv6SEzG9ttRpILU2tFYEIyZY0pB Y_u0vkCq2A3w8FhAupkatleZ10VCfg55UaHHwV9TjlvvOVEAnwNnQ8n5R5bc a14C6UYBIvbH6LNCQfsMP0q3rhQc4MnAwq2alLa.LSpF2DoMZ1RKhssnNbiV wR9IX4qozXBl0zAzuJN7ODcw74dugFhIjMGed3KWYOfSNfOOPTR5wFRtHpsi akHK.4zdOMN.aeUSZk12B8ala6YKgOg5RneQG4mXtC7f7.12bqqZRwWIrfeA vFd47p0AlAO7v4xQ80y0LcyQ_pvz0Y.7aun5OEO3HbRVlqwJnuCYUKCVp8Em mVpF.HnTGCJjRFFfWnzyJyFjcXTx854yzwD_.BsGYp0g0.7Jyv7zJxy5p_So cMCqN990L5cdosUqjGCx0ur6Io71SLGNJUqACqktsCLrF0zU2ww7wJ0HHbpr hLX8rs0FIcnNe1K_r8NR4zqGVAl8d1hpHaBW1rkpCCtFb11ZVBxhKUEOWlwe ENTfSn8Ivs2SH2Our_3UqBHfnyfpor8akqDwB2cLuOR65NpCILYv_Yhlp9kt LO0aXf1FBmbk_AI0oepKn3bUjd4MTFMPRrgC6YdII3uLJuUzDpRzPR8dLWd6 lDw2PkgCGzTHdilYc_BKY X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g- Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 References: <5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com> <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales> <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> <5433F201.2020902@gmail.com> <5434EA6C.9090507@gmail.com> <1412802488.55250.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412861205.15295.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412871334.88429.YahooMailNeo@web181106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412904403.17231.YahooMailNeo@web181104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412944837.7070.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1412988188.73626.YahooMailNeo@web181105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> From: "'John E. Clifford' via lojban" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 07:39:31 -0500 To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.137 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=yahoo.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Original-From: "John E. Clifford" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-A5DC837C-9CAC-4697-A3D4-A723F8413CF1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.4 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.4 X-Spam_score_int: -3 X-Spam_bar: / --Apple-Mail-A5DC837C-9CAC-4697-A3D4-A723F8413CF1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Well, I've already said several times that I don't understand what this thr= ead is about, so I,ll take that part as true. But denying you are giving u= p on ergonomicity while presenting several "improvements" in Lojban which c= learly -- and, indeed, boastfully -- bring back features that the drive for= a more ergonomic form got rid of seems perverse. The apparent problem is = that you do not know the rules for getting logical forms from linguistic on= es. This is not surprising since Logjam has always neglected this issue in= favor of the intermediate one of getting to monoparsing, from which produc= t the move to logical form was thought to be easier. You seem tobe about r= ewriting things directly in Lojban (well, something descended from Lojban a= nyhow) rather than in the parses. This may at some point be needed, but it= seems a move best left til after other, more natural and traditional moves= have been exhausted. The fact that some of your suggestions appear to be = clearly wrong even on your own terms adds to the difficulty in figuring out= what this bread is about. The difference between the 1s and the 2s is just using and not using the mi= nimum scope rule (which has, admittedly, a number of exception clauses but = none that apply here). The fact that the proposed rewritings are more comp= lex and farther from the actual logical (in the cases of b and the addition= ally incorrect c) means that the results are not more obvious at all. The tricky cases involving fronting and subject raising and the like do sug= gest the the efforts to ergonomize logic into Lojban are not complete or co= mpletely successful. Your proposals do suggest some ways to deal with thes= e hard cases, though these can probably be implemented without all the rest= of your apparatus. I got to wondering about "What I think John knows is possible", ignoring th= e extra problems of cognitive predicates and using / for the descriptor, si= nce typefaces keep confusing LC ell with one and uc i. P /x(Bi/y(^Kjx^y)), = which Is not going to convert easily, as you say. But that is no reason to= disparage cases that do convert easily. Indeed, it makes me inclined to d= oubt the legitimacy of the form itself (quantifying in and all that). Sent from my iPad On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:20, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote: >=20 > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban wrote: >=20 > The syntax of Lojban doesn't allow any transformation, since it is entire= ly static (whether PEG or YACC). So I suppose that you mean that {re da = lo mamta be da} is not a term in Lojban. =20 >=20 > I mean that the logical form of "lo mamta be re da cu cliva" is not as o= bvious from the syntactic form as the logical form of, on the one hand: >=20 > (1a) lo poi'i re da zo'u ke'a mamta da cu cliva > (1b) xxx poi re da zo'u ke'a mamta da cu cliva > (1c) zo'e noi re da zo'u ke'a mamta da cu cliva >=20 > and on the other hand: >=20 > (2a) re da zo'u lo poi'i ke'a mamta da cu cliva > (2b) re da zo'u xxx poi ke'a mamta da cu cliva > (2c) re da zo'u zo'e noi ke'a mamta da cu cliva >=20 > We need to state explicitly in the rules for interpreting the language th= at "lo mamta be re da cu cliva" corresponds to the 1's and not to the 2's. = To anyone familiar with FOPL, the rules for interpreting the 1's and 2's a= re more obvious and straightforward just from the syntactic form in a way t= hat they are not so obvious in the condensed form. >=20 > =20 > The whole point of much of the deviation of Lojban from logical notation = is to make an ergonomic (yuck, ptui!) language while keeping a connection t= o the logic. Why deliberately go after the antiergonomic "standard form" w= hen you have a good representation already, =20 >=20 > The sumti-tail form requires fronting the argument place for the variable= bound by "lo". It is not always possible or convenient to do that. For exa= mple: >=20 > lo poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki > xxx poi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki > zo'e noi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki > "That which I think John knows is possible."=20 >=20 > =20 > There are problems with Lojban's representations of standard form, but th= e solution is to find better ergonomic treatments, not to give up and go ba= ck to the unusable originals. >=20 > If you think anyone is suggesting giving up on the ergonomic forms, you a= re misreading what this thread is all about.=20 >=20 > mu'o mi'e xorxes >=20 > --=20 > 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. --=20 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 e= mail 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. --Apple-Mail-A5DC837C-9CAC-4697-A3D4-A723F8413CF1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Well, I've already said s= everal times that I don't understand what this thread is about, so I,ll tak= e that part as true.  But denying you are giving up on ergonomicity wh= ile presenting several "improvements" in Lojban which clearly -- and, indee= d, boastfully -- bring back features that the drive for a more ergonomic fo= rm got rid of seems perverse.  The apparent problem is that you do not= know the rules for getting logical forms from linguistic ones.  This = is not surprising since Logjam has always neglected this issue in favor of = the intermediate one of getting to monoparsing, from which product the move= to logical form was thought to be easier.  You seem tobe about rewrit= ing things directly in Lojban (well, something descended from Lojban anyhow= ) rather than in the parses.  This may at some point be needed, but it= seems a move best left til after other, more natural and traditional moves= have been exhausted.  The fact that some of your suggestions appear t= o be clearly wrong even on your own terms adds to the difficulty in figurin= g out what this bread is about.
The difference between the 1s a= nd the 2s is just using and not using the minimum scope rule (which has, ad= mittedly, a number of exception clauses but none that apply here).  Th= e fact that the proposed rewritings are more complex and farther from the a= ctual logical (in the cases of b and the additionally incorrect c) means th= at the results are not more obvious at all.
The tricky ca= ses involving fronting and subject raising and the like do suggest the the = efforts to ergonomize logic into Lojban are not complete or completely succ= essful.  Your proposals do suggest some ways to deal with these hard c= ases, though these can probably be implemented without all the rest of your= apparatus.
I got to wondering about "What I think John k= nows is possible", ignoring the extra problems of cognitive predicates and = using / for the descriptor, since typefaces keep confusing LC ell with one = and uc i. P /x(Bi/y(^Kjx^y)), which Is not going to convert easily, as you = say.  But that is no reason to disparage cases that do convert easily.=  Indeed, it makes me inclined to doubt the legitimacy of the form its= elf (quantifying in and all that).




Sent from my iPad

On Oct 11, 2014, at 6:20, Jo= rge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gm= ail.com> wrote:


On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:43 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <l= ojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

The syntax of Lojban doesn't allow any transformation, since it is entirely static (whether PEG or YACC= ).  So I suppose that  you mean that  {re da lo mamta be da}= is not a term in Lojban.  
=
I mean that the logical form of  "lo mamta be re da cu = cliva" is not as obvious from the syntactic form as the logical form of, on= the one hand:

(1a) lo poi'i re da zo'u ke'a mamta= da cu cliva
(1b) xxx poi re da zo'u ke'a mamta da  cu cliva=
(1c) zo'e noi re da zo'u ke'a mamta da cu cliva

and on the other hand:

(2a) re da zo= 'u lo poi'i ke'a mamta da cu cliva
(2b) re da zo'u xxx poi ke'a m= amta da  cu cliva
(2c) re da zo'u zo'e noi ke'a mamta da cu = cliva

We need to state explicitly in the rul= es for interpreting the language that "lo mamta be re da cu cliva" correspo= nds to the 1's and not to the 2's. To anyone familiar with FOPL, the rules = for interpreting the 1's  and 2's are more obvious and straightforward= just from the syntactic form in a way that they are not so obvious in the = condensed form.

 
=
The whole point o= f much of the deviation of Lojban from logical notation is to make an ergon= omic (yuck, ptui!) language while keeping a connection to the logic.  = Why deliberately go after the antiergonomic "standard form" when you have a good representation alre= ady,  

The su= mti-tail form requires fronting the argument place for the variable bound b= y "lo". It is not always possible or convenient to do that. For example:

  lo poi'i mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno lo= du'u ke'a cumki
  xxx poi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan cu djuno= lo du'u ke'a cumki
  zo'e noi mi jinvi lo du'u la djan = cu djuno lo du'u ke'a cumki
  "That which I think John k= nows is possible." 

 
There are= problems with Lojban's representations of standard form, but the solution = is to find better ergonomic treatments, not to give up and go back to the u= nusable originals.

If you think anyone is suggesting giving up on the ergonomic forms, you ar= e misreading what this thread is all about. 

= mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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 e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--Apple-Mail-A5DC837C-9CAC-4697-A3D4-A723F8413CF1--