Received: from mail-lb0-f190.google.com ([209.85.217.190]:54908) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XlnRc-0001e7-9E for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:23:32 -0800 Received: by mail-lb0-f190.google.com with SMTP id z12sf105320lbi.7 for ; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:23:16 -0800 (PST) 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=v0ye5udQVdxz7pJdiM5hC5wi++jCDz2rNISfmnbK73A=; b=BM8mjNkhWYpUVv3JQFwA0A6eznMHkvm/CIE85B8YLALh4nEZZKU2J1BOLMG8ne+VX4 VVzMDAG+TWAVW/oP7cOavCnwYkcczd1etR+FpzDQjpjXYNIRHnhQBBg9zuomgC9fnd/L VGYhDGyoo+W4TtJS4enD3qfvOGQ6/KV1U55AC3o5DuB1EmY3y3l9RKSQKL8engvdeGUX 7X9B0wwxAiI8iZ5sg4LWzR8Y6zofEym5xUmc/t7CMA3kcZ6WGLEPFk9kx2vLDHzLR9qE 7j3IrfJrsDSFr2CARRkHsYlcLKcHS7uMURB5A21a0uZjPuSUwO8FW86GGkXfC17cp4oX efLA== X-Received: by 10.152.18.137 with SMTP id w9mr37320lad.9.1415143396773; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:23:16 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.42.173 with SMTP id p13ls378762lal.84.gmail; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:23:15 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.152.6.4 with SMTP id w4mr87719law.7.1415143395843; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:23:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l9si562266wix.1.2014.11.04.15.23.15 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:23:15 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a; Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id q5so10008076wiv.3 for ; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:23:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.188.69 with SMTP id fy5mr1125224wic.57.1415143395724; Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:23:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.105.201 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Nov 2014 15:23:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141104010958.GA27496@gonzales> References: <20141021010639.GB11705@gonzales> <20141022002214.GD25753@gonzales> <20141022230855.GG2128@gonzales> <20141028022945.GA6097@gonzales> <20141030013306.GO4023@gonzales> <20141104010958.GA27496@gonzales> Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 20:23:15 -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::22a 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=001a11c381ee6890f9050710bf87 X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c381ee6890f9050710bf87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > So then a tag would be able to play three roles: > (i) combining with an optional term to form a modal operator; > (ii) acting in certain connectives as a binary relation on events; > (iii) acting in the {pe [tag]} construction as a binary relation. > Shouldn't (ii) be split into (ii-a) a tag acting itself as a connective, and (ii-b) a tag modifying some other connective. It seems that not all tags can do (ii-a), only tags that can take two event/proposition arguments can do do that, whereas in principle all tags could do (ii-b), depending on how the modification of the base connective goes. Also (ii-a) may, but hopefully doesn't, split into two further cases: "[tag] gi ... gi ..." and "... .i [tag] bo ..." It would be nice to unify (ii) and (iii). Doesn't (iii) always reduce to (i) though: pe [tag] ko'a = poi ke'a co'e [tag] ko'a? > I don't see a natural way to fully reduce (ii) to (i) or (i) to (ii). > I think when the tag tags an event as sumti tcita. the relationship between (i) and (ii-a) is pretty straightforward: broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda [tag] lo nu brode (for non-tenses) broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda .i brode [tag] lo nu broda (for tenses) With forethought I would drop the independent "broda" that appears in the tense case. (ii-b) is the tricky case, because the logical connective wants to evaluate the truth values of two propositions independently, so in which of the two propositions does the tag play a role? > 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)). > > For tenses, yes. And for non-tenses, by analogy I think it has to be broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda .i broda [tag] lo nu brode > The only tricky bit is deciding what exactly the > seltcita sumti of the tag should be. > "lo nu xu kau broda"., "the event of brodaing or not brodaing, whichever the case might be". > OK. So it currently seems to me that: > > * quantifying over events is the right thing to do; > If by that you mean the speaker is claiming a hidden "su'o", I have to disagree. Going back a bit, when someone says "carvi" they are not saying "there is some event of raining, x, and x happens". They may be saying "c is an event of raining and c happens", but not the first. If they were saying the first, there would be no way to negate the claim, because "na carvi" would be "there is some event of not raining, x, and x happens", which doesn't contradict the first claim, so "na carvi" would not be the way to negate "carvi". Now, when A says "carvi", we may describe this as "there's some event of raining, x, and A says that x happens", but that's not the same as saying "A says that there's some event of raining, x, and x happens". So if by "quantifying over events" you mean that the speaker is quantifying over events, I don't see it. If you mean that you can interpret what the speaker is saying by quantifying over events, (i.e. the metalinguistic interpreter does the quantifying, not the speaker) then that may be, but isn't the parser supposed to just translate from one language to another rather than make a metalinguistic interpretation? > * for tenses: the second sentence gets tagged, with the seltcita sumti > being (the variable for) the event of the first sentence, which is > declared to occur (unless the connective is forethought and below > sentence level); > * for non-tenses: the same, but with the roles of the first and second > sentences swapped; > We're probably not disagreeing very much about those two, although we may quibble about a detail or two. > * when a logical connective other than {je} is involved: we have to > separately consider the cases that the seltcita sumti involved is an > event of the sentence and that it's an event of the sentence's > negation. > ... because in order to eveluate a logical connective you have to consider cases where the proposition is not true as well as cases when it is true. 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. --001a11c381ee6890f9050710bf87 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:

So then a tag wo= uld be able to play three roles:
(i) combining with an optional term to form a modal operator;
(ii) acting in certain connectives as a binary relation on events;
(iii) acting in the {pe [tag]} construction as a binary relation.

Shouldn't (ii) be split into (ii-a) a tag ac= ting itself as a connective, and (ii-b) a tag modifying some other connecti= ve. It seems that not all tags can do (ii-a), only tags that can take two e= vent/proposition arguments can do do that, whereas in principle all tags co= uld do (ii-b), depending on how the modification of the base connective goe= s. Also (ii-a) may, but hopefully doesn't, split into two further cases= : "[tag] gi ... gi ..." and "... .i [tag] bo ..."
=

It would be nice to unify (ii) and (iii).

= Doesn't (iii) always reduce to (i) though: pe [tag] ko'a =3D poi ke= 'a co'e [tag] ko'a?
=C2=A0
I don't see a natural way to fully reduce (ii) to (i) or (i) to (ii).

I think when the tag tags an event as su= mti tcita. the relationship between (i) and (ii-a) is pretty straightforwar= d:=C2=A0

broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda [tag] lo = nu brode (for non-tenses)

broda .i [tag] bo brode = ~ broda .i brode [tag] lo nu broda (for tenses)

Wi= th forethought I would drop the independent "broda" that appears = in the tense case.

(ii-b) is the tricky case, beca= use the logical connective wants to evaluate the truth values of two propos= itions independently, so in which of the two propositions does the tag play= a role?=C2=A0

> The mix with logical connectives is the tricky case, but it becomes ea= sier
> if we think of the tag as modifying only the second connectand, in whi= ch
> case "broda .i je tag bo brode" is just (broda) .ije (tag(br= ode)).

For tenses, yes.

And for non-tenses= , by analogy I think it has to be=C2=A0

broda .i [= tag] bo brode ~ broda .i broda [tag] lo nu brode
=C2=A0
The only tricky bit is deciding what exactly the
seltcita sumti of the tag should be.

&q= uot;lo nu xu kau broda"., "the event of brodaing or not brodaing,= whichever the case might be".

=C2=A0
OK. So it currently seems to me that:

* quantifying over events is the right thing to do;
If by that you mean the speaker is claiming a hidden "su&= #39;o", I have to disagree.=C2=A0

Going back = a bit, when someone says "carvi" they are not saying "there = is some event of raining, x, and x happens". They may be saying "= c is an event of raining and c happens", but not the first. If they we= re saying the first, there would be no way to negate the claim, because &qu= ot;na carvi" would be "there is some event of not raining, x, and= x happens", which doesn't contradict the first claim, so "na= carvi" would not be the way to negate "carvi".
Now, when A says "carvi", we may describe this as &q= uot;there's some event of raining, x, and A says that x happens", = but that's not the same as saying "A says that there's some ev= ent of raining, x, and x happens".

So if by &= quot;quantifying over events" you mean that the speaker is quantifying= over events, I don't see it. If you mean that you can interpret what t= he speaker is saying by quantifying over events, (i.e. the metalinguistic i= nterpreter does the quantifying, not the speaker) then that may be, but isn= 't the parser supposed to just translate from one language to another r= ather than make a metalinguistic interpretation?
=C2=A0
* for tenses: the second sentence gets tagged, with the seltcita sumti
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 being (the variable for) the event of the first sentence, whi= ch is
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 declared to occur (unless the connective is forethought and b= elow
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 sentence level);
* for non-tenses: the same, but with the roles of the first and second
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 sentences swapped;

We'= ;re probably not disagreeing very much about those two, although we may qui= bble about a detail or two.
=C2=A0
* when a logical connective other than {je} is involved: we have to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 separately consider the cases that the seltcita sumti involve= d is an
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 event of the sentence and that it's an event of the sente= nce's
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 negation.

... because in = order to eveluate a logical connective you have to consider cases where the= proposition is not true as well as cases when it is true.

mu'o mi'e xorxes
=C2=A0

--
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.
--001a11c381ee6890f9050710bf87--