Received: from mail-wg0-f59.google.com ([74.125.82.59]:61082) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Xjxqa-0006cB-Dl for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:05:43 -0700 Received: by mail-wg0-f59.google.com with SMTP id y10sf186825wgg.24 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:05:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :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; bh=Ov43ssKPPEVvEkzcxiZ+uqT4sSbgqb6VkrjERBsfEfA=; b=uY9rj7CpczBjYgDEZq+fsizuzxYGgC+XeKdTyJ/xjcIV7RfrcjigedXGrTJ5H6Lkky sR9Rt5bUQ2CZEF1CqAZ70/3K2FwU7/yRs2Utp9qp0tG/bKoFQygVuwfMBlYsy004hukn PdAKQO7VnYKiNyPwlvb5iRNH634/b4hWPnGopbJ8yv7J7S48MivDw0xKylP4R2J0+cFS Pv5A75gUsBOVZVMY0eUFL6OrSz0WPgybU9OIKVaslTj/bJkz0ts+o+6Xt7nd1Xa2cj0n kuSmKYvbd6JDYmSpT7WKA6pXVO/8HsvGHtVGrMbAFM8BkwnKoRABQ1zwbkN+ypoZ9erM TMBw== X-Received: by 10.180.73.77 with SMTP id j13mr214106wiv.15.1414706729282; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:05:29 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.24.168 with SMTP id v8ls5147wif.50.canary; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:05:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.181.27.135 with SMTP id jg7mr3425406wid.5.1414706728775; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ca20si1090524wib.3.2014.10.30.15.05.28 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f; Received: by mail-wi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id ex7so5796018wid.8 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:05:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.5.227 with SMTP id v3mr24096906wjv.63.1414706728682; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.105.201 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:05:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141030013306.GO4023@gonzales> References: <20141018233648.GA29040@gonzales> <20141021010639.GB11705@gonzales> <20141022002214.GD25753@gonzales> <20141022230855.GG2128@gonzales> <20141028022945.GA6097@gonzales> <20141030013306.GO4023@gonzales> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:05:28 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.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: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d3e68064bdd0506ab149e X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --047d7b5d3e68064bdd0506ab149e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > Well, CLL is quite explicit in considering forethought and afterthought > to be equivalent. And it seems natural to me at least. > It is reasonable, but I don't know how natural. With forethough connectives, the surface form places the two sentences clearly under the scope of the tag. With afterthought the second sentence is under its scope, but it's not so clear for the first. CLL says that both sentences are independently claimed when connected with a tag, which can be strange for some tags, such as "no roi", or say "fi'o natfe". . > I suggest we concentrate on afterthought for now, anyway. I was only > using forethought for concision. And the tricky case of tensed logical > connectives doesn't have a forethought form (bizarrely). > That could be another reason why forethought and afterthought tag connectives need not be identical. I find the forethought case easier in that I would read it as just a binary predicate with two bridi/event arguments, whereas in the afterthought case it's not unreasonable that the first connectand is being claimed independently. The mix with logical connectives is the tricky case, but it becomes easier if we think of the tag as modifying only the second connectand, in which case "broda .i je tag bo brode" is just (broda) .ije (tag(brode)). > It seems the rules for tenses are quite different than the rules for most > > tags: > > > > (1) broda .i ba bo brode -> broda .i ba la'e di'u brode > > (2) broda .i no roi bo brode -> broda .i go'i no roi lo nu brode > > I don't see at all how you get (2)! > > Are you considering {no roi} to not be a tense? Why, if so? > I guess I was. I could have used a BAI instead: (3) broda .i ki'u bo brode -> broda .i go'i ki'u lo nu brode In my mind it was only PU (and presumably FAhA as well) that behaved oddly as connectives, but I see now that CLL mentions PU, ZI, FAhA, VA and ZAhO. For CLL however, ZAhO is irregular as sumti tcita, so in fact CLL and I would agree again on how ZAhO behave as connectives. We would both say that "broda .i co'a bo brode" means "it brodas, starting when it brodes", but we'd get there by two different roads. > carvi i jo glare > > It rains iff it's warm. > > > > carvi .i jo ba bo glare > > It rains iff later it's warm. > > (Either it rains and then later it's warm, or else it doesn't rain and > then > > later it isn't warm.) > > That seems to agree. > > > carvi .i jo no roi bo glare > > It rains iff never when it's warm. > > (Either it rains but never when it's warm, or it doesn't rain but at > least > > once when not warm.) > > This seems not to. The quantificational semantics above would render it > as "either it rains and is never warm during that raining, or it doesn't > rain and is not never warm during that non-raining". > Yes, I was taking it as "no roi carvi", not as "no roi glare". With ki'u: carvi .i jo ki'u bo glare It rains iff because it's warm. (Either it rains because it's warm, or it doesn't rain because it's not warm.) Ah, but perhaps this is just because you have {no roi} as not being > a tense. Considering it as not a tense, raining and warmth would be > swapped. Does that then agree with what you get? > Yes, I was taking "no roi" as following the general pattern, not the tense pattern. 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. --047d7b5d3e68064bdd0506ab149e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:

Well, CLL is quite explicit in considering forethought and afterthought
to be equivalent. And it seems natural to me at least.

It is reasonable, but I don't know how natural. With fo= rethough connectives, the surface form places the two sentences clearly und= er the scope of the tag. With afterthought the second sentence is under its= scope, but it's not so clear for the first. CLL says that both sentenc= es are independently claimed when connected with a tag, which can be strang= e for some tags, such as "no roi", or say "fi'o natfe&qu= ot;. .
=C2=A0
I suggest we concentrate on afterthought for now, anyway. I was only
using forethought for concision. And the tricky case of tensed logical
connectives doesn't have a forethought form (bizarrely).

That could be another reason why forethought and afte= rthought tag connectives need not be identical. I find the forethought case= easier in that I would read it as just a binary predicate with two bridi/e= vent arguments, whereas in the afterthought case it's not unreasonable = that the first connectand is being claimed independently.

The mix with logical connectives is the tricky case, but it becomes= easier if we think of the tag as modifying only the second connectand, in = which case "broda .i je tag bo brode" is just (broda) .ije (tag(b= rode)).=C2=A0

> It seems the rules for tenses are quite different than the rules for m= ost
> tags:
>
> (1) broda .i ba bo brode -> broda .i ba la'e di'u brode
> (2) broda .i no roi bo brode -> broda .i go'i no roi lo nu brod= e

I don't see at all how you get (2)!

Are you considering {no roi} to not be a tense? Why, if so?

I guess I was. I could have used a BAI instead:
<= div>
(3) broda .i ki'u bo brode -> broda .i go'i k= i'u lo nu brode=C2=A0

In my mind it was only P= U (and presumably FAhA as well) that behaved oddly as connectives, but I se= e now that CLL mentions PU, ZI, FAhA, VA and ZAhO. For CLL however, ZAhO is= irregular as sumti tcita, so in fact CLL and I would agree again on how ZA= hO behave as connectives. We would both say that "broda .i co'a bo= brode" means "it brodas, starting when it brodes", but we&#= 39;d get there by two different roads.

> carvi i jo glare
> It rains iff it's warm.
>
> carvi .i jo ba bo glare
> It rains iff later it's warm.
> (Either it rains and then later it's warm, or else it doesn't = rain and then
> later it isn't warm.)

That seems to agree.

> carvi .i jo no roi bo glare
> It rains iff never when it's warm.
> (Either it rains but never when it's warm, or it doesn't rain = but at least
> once when not warm.)

This seems not to. The quantificational semantics above would render= it
as "either it rains and is never warm during that raining, or it doesn= 't
rain and is not never warm during that non-raining".
<= div>
Yes, I was taking it as "no roi carvi", not as= "no roi glare". With ki'u:

carvi .i= jo ki'u bo glare
It rains iff because it's warm.
(Either it rains because it's warm, or it doesn't rain because i= t's not warm.)

Ah, but perhaps this is just because you have {no roi} as not being
a tense. Considering it as not a tense, raining and warmth would be
swapped. Does that then agree with what you get?

<= /div>
Yes, I was taking "no roi" as following the general pat= tern, not the tense pattern.=C2=A0

mu'o mi'= ;e xorxes

--
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.
--047d7b5d3e68064bdd0506ab149e--