Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::231;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20141015005542.GC3713@gonzales>
References: <20141011021201.GH22868@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2c_S3hC5K3eqSkmFjzZT4F5BRFLJ_+X44N212sygj_VGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141011143749.GD23876@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2dEB=OsT6hkw1SRzPMRV6qOm7LpNXapdwKAb8s9y889oA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141012012427.GF23876@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2cFUJamcpRmv1y=Was0tUVrdaZrQ+B8_pVJ+rBd=JiJSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141012173533.GG23876@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2d7nJEczJ7jzMLZBCzUB3ODu42v7Lp0SmsYTYc113r4RQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141014010742.GF19061@gonzales>
	<CAO7tK2fVs8r0cbk_Cvu_TgAf19QA19fmqEFCFbQ=mROqpFvd-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141015005542.GC3713@gonzales>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 18:07:03 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cb-99yDWVYNN-yxCCXZsw=3t7O-aNbtd7rrhb5uTKq3w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@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=f46d0435c06a82c80b05057c832a
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--f46d0435c06a82c80b05057c832a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
>
> But the rule for logically connected sumti at top level is the same rule
> as for logical connectives in various other places, e.g. bridi tails,
> abstractions, tags, operators, operands. Roughly, that rule is: you
> substitute in each of the connected possibilities, yielding two
> propositions, then logically connect those propositions.
>

Yes, but that rule doesn't automatically apply to all constructs. You can't
for example apply it directly to "lo broda be ko'a .e ko'e cu brode".
Therefore it is effectively a separate rule for each construct it applies
to.

For sumti-tail there's an obvious choice: {lo [quantifier] [sumti]}
> could be equivalent to {lo [quantifier] me [sumti]} for complex sumti as
> well as for simple sumti.
>

LE [quantifier] [sumti] is interesting. I think I never actually gave much
thought to "lo re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerku" having such a very unintuitive
parse.

In any case, I wouldn't introduce an additional rule to interpret "lo ci
ko'a .a ko'e":

lo ci ko'a .a ko'e
=lo poi'i ci mei gi'e me ko'a .a ko'e
=lo poi'i ci mei gi'e ga me ko'a gi me ko'e

I assume you are not interpreting it in that way, but rather as "lo ci ko'a
ku .a lo ci ko'e"?

For {me}, I'm not sure... is there something {ko'a me ko'e .e ko'i}
> could mean other than {ko'a me ko'e .i je ko'a me ko'i}?
>

For "me [sumti]", the predicate "menre" was proposed, such that "me
[sumti]" = "menre (be) [sumti]". "me ko'a .e ko'e" doesn't require a new
rule since:

me ko'a .e ko'e
= menre ko'a .e ko'e
= ge menre ko'a gi menre ko'e
= ge me ko'a gi me ko'e


As for {mo'e}, I suppose we could use a relation "is the value
> corresponding to"? But it really does seem to me much simpler to just
> have {mo'e ko'a .e ko'e} be equivalent to {mo'e ko'a .e mo'e ko'e}.
>

I have no idea what the rules for mekso are in detail, so I don't know
whether for example "li na'u sinso mo'e ko'a .e ko'e" is supposed to be
equivalent to "lo sinso be ko'a .e ko'e" or to "li na'u sinso mo'e ko'a
lo'o .e li na'u sinso mo'e ko'e". I would like to say (not too adamantly)
that it's the first, which doesn't require an additional rule for ".e", but
you are probably interpreting as the second.

 > Do we even know what "na ku zo'u broda .i bo brode" means?

>
> I believe it's the same as "na ku ge broda gi brode".
>

I suppose that's one choice, although it's not a necessity that
juxtaposition be equated with conjunction, or that the negation of two
separate propositions has to be the negation of their conjunction.

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 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.

--f46d0435c06a82c80b05057c832a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Martin Bays <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:mbays@sdf.org" target=3D"_blank">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt;</span> wr=
ote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bor=
der-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:sol=
id;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
<br>
</span>But the rule for logically connected sumti at top level is the same =
rule<br>
as for logical connectives in various other places, e.g. bridi tails,<br>
abstractions, tags, operators, operands. Roughly, that rule is: you<br>
substitute in each of the connected possibilities, yielding two<br>
propositions, then logically connect those propositions.<br></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div>Yes, but that rule doesn&#39;t automatically apply to all=
 constructs. You can&#39;t for example apply it directly to &quot;lo broda =
be ko&#39;a .e ko&#39;e cu brode&quot;. Therefore it is effectively a separ=
ate rule for each construct it applies to.</div><div><br></div><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1=
px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:=
1ex">
For sumti-tail there&#39;s an obvious choice: {lo [quantifier] [sumti]}<br>
could be equivalent to {lo [quantifier] me [sumti]} for complex sumti as<br=
>
well as for simple sumti.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>LE [quantifie=
r] [sumti] is interesting. I think I never actually gave much thought to &q=
uot;lo re lo mlatu .e ci lo gerku&quot; having such a very unintuitive pars=
e.</div><div><br></div><div>In any case, I wouldn&#39;t introduce an additi=
onal rule to interpret &quot;lo ci ko&#39;a .a ko&#39;e&quot;:</div><div><b=
r></div><div>lo ci ko&#39;a .a ko&#39;e</div><div>=3Dlo poi&#39;i ci mei gi=
&#39;e me ko&#39;a .a ko&#39;e</div><div>=3Dlo poi&#39;i ci mei gi&#39;e ga=
 me ko&#39;a gi me ko&#39;e</div><div><br></div><div>I assume you are not i=
nterpreting it in that way, but rather as &quot;lo ci ko&#39;a ku .a lo ci =
ko&#39;e&quot;?=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"=
 style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:=
rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
For {me}, I&#39;m not sure... is there something {ko&#39;a me ko&#39;e .e k=
o&#39;i}<br>
could mean other than {ko&#39;a me ko&#39;e .i je ko&#39;a me ko&#39;i}?<br=
></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For &quot;me [sumti]&quot;, the predicate=
 &quot;menre&quot; was proposed, such that &quot;me [sumti]&quot; =3D &quot=
;menre (be) [sumti]&quot;. &quot;me ko&#39;a .e ko&#39;e&quot; doesn&#39;t =
require a new rule since:=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>me ko&#39;a .e ko&=
#39;e</div><div>=3D menre ko&#39;a .e ko&#39;e</div><div>=3D ge menre ko=
9;a gi menre ko&#39;e</div><div>=3D ge me ko&#39;a gi me ko&#39;e</div><div=
><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)=
;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
As for {mo&#39;e}, I suppose we could use a relation &quot;is the value<br>
corresponding to&quot;? But it really does seem to me much simpler to just<=
br>
have {mo&#39;e ko&#39;a .e ko&#39;e} be equivalent to {mo&#39;e ko&#39;a .e=
 mo&#39;e ko&#39;e}.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>I have no ide=
a what the rules for mekso are in detail, so I don&#39;t know whether for e=
xample &quot;li na&#39;u sinso mo&#39;e ko&#39;a .e ko&#39;e&quot; is suppo=
sed to be equivalent to &quot;lo sinso be ko&#39;a .e ko&#39;e&quot; or to =
&quot;li na&#39;u sinso mo&#39;e ko&#39;a lo&#39;o .e li na&#39;u sinso mo&=
#39;e ko&#39;e&quot;. I would like to say (not too adamantly) that it&#39;s=
 the first, which doesn&#39;t require an additional rule for &quot;.e&quot;=
, but you are probably interpreting as the second.=C2=A0</div><div><br></di=
v></div><div>=C2=A0&gt; Do we even know what &quot;na ku zo&#39;u broda .i =
bo brode&quot; means?</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204=
);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
<br>
</span>I believe it&#39;s the same as &quot;na ku ge broda gi brode&quot;.<=
br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I suppose that&#39;s one choice, althou=
gh it&#39;s not a necessity that juxtaposition be equated with conjunction,=
 or that the negation of two separate propositions has to be the negation o=
f their conjunction.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</d=
iv><div><br></div></div></div></div>

<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 />

--f46d0435c06a82c80b05057c832a--