Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 12:10:36 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141108171036.GA10866@gonzales>
References: <20141030013306.GO4023@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2ciwFP-OgBw3Z6YH9hyXPpMNR2pN7W15Ac2HsZnAkjd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141104010958.GA27496@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dy3oYy1F-6tQZqYbDcq30M6wAbP-mmxxMjMdCN8-0DrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141105035457.GA7768@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dmz1QjaUQMJsfm7LFVtrjr2PT_T1eZmHEwoo1-p97WrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141106232818.GB1433@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2eBTj=kmYFpd34zxtFoSNmndmmNDfV_uOWaczui7ZSZvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141108030052.GC8542@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2eXatdGAmu4L4h9S28H3baFm9S8+ZPfoQYZi2+qJo4AzQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2eXatdGAmu4L4h9S28H3baFm9S8+ZPfoQYZi2+qJo4AzQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: latmo
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: -


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

* Saturday, 2014-11-08 at 11:28 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:

> On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>=20
> > * Friday, 2014-11-07 at 17:58 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmai=
l.com
> > >:
>=20
> > On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > > > * Wednesday, 2014-11-05 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> > > > > I was speculating on what the second proposition would be when
> > > > > a logical connective is involved. Nothing really makes much
> > > > > sense though.
> > > > Is it so bad for it to be {brode}, completing the symmetry with
> > > > the tense case?
> > > It's unintuitive for me, it doesn't really fit the surface form.
> >
> > I see what you mean. But CLL is clear that brode is claimed, so I'll go
> > with that.
>=20
> So following CLL, without logical connectives "broda .i [tag] bo brode"
> makes three independent claims:
>=20
> (1) broda
> (2) brode
> (3) lo nu broda cu xo'i [tag]  (for tense tags)
>      lo nu brode cu xo'i [tag]  (for non-tense tags)

I read CLL as explicitly claiming a relation between events
corresponding to the two sides, not leaving one of them up to context
like this. So I read it as having
(3') {[tag] le nu broda kei brode} (tense)
     {[tag] le nu brode kei broda} (non-tense)

> CLL analyzes the relatively easy cases (causals) where the tag-claim
> presupposes the subordinate claims in any case,

Implies rather than presupposes, I'd say (the distinction matters in
embedded contexts).

Because CLL only considers such cases, I think in the non-tense case we
can feasibly read it as only claiming (2) and (3'), with (1) being an
implication of (3') in the cases it considers.

Reading its account of the distinction between 9:7.1 and 9:7.7, where
the former is of form (3') and the latter is a non-tense connection, it
seems quite clearly to be saying that all it adds to (3') is a claim
of form (2).

CLL also doesn't consider embedded contexts, so I think we can expect to
have to change its use of {le nu} to something other than {lo nu}.

> but this may be problematic for other tags such as "se ba'i" or "se
> cau", where the negation of one of the subordinate claims would have
> to be presupposed. So for example:
>=20
>  (a)   mi na klama lo zarci .i ba'i bo mi stali lo zdani
>        I don't go to the market. Instead, I stay home.
>=20
> (a1) mi na klama lo zarci
> (a2) mi stali lo zdani
> (a3) lo nu mi stali lo zdani cu basti (lo nu mi (ja'a!) klama lo zarci)
>=20
> That works fine, because the change from "na" to "ja'a" is not part of
> anything explicit in (3).

This doesn't work with (3'), and hence not with CLL as I'm reading it.

> But what if we wanted to say "mi stali lo zdani" first. Do we say:
>=20
> (b)   mi stali lo zdani .i se ba'i bo mi klama lo zarci
>=20
> (b1) mi stali lo zdani
> (b2) mi klama lo zarci (?!)
> (b3) lo nu mi klama lo zarci cu se basti (lo nu mi stali lo zdani)
>=20
> or do we say:
>=20
> (c)  mi stali lo zdani .i se ba'i bo mi na klama lo zarci
>=20
> (c1) mi stali lo zdani
> (c2) mi na klama lo zarci
> (c3) lo nu mi na klama lo zarci cu se basti (lo nu mi stali lo zdani)  (?=
!)
>=20
> Neither (b) nor (c) seems to work well with (1), (2), (3), so we either
> have to discard (2), amend (3) somehow.

Meanwhile with (1)+(2)+(3'), this definition of {ba'i} gives an
immediate contradiction between (1) and (3').

> or dictate that tags like "se ba'i" don't make sense as bridi
> connectives. CLL says that tags like "bau" don't make much sense,
> which is reasonable because a bridi doesn't really describe
> a language, but if "se ba'i" were not to make sense it would be for
> a very different reason.

Yes. Another option, if we do want to keep (1), which given the surface
form would I agree be nice, would be to take it as part of the semantics
of non-tense tags that {[tag] [[sumti]] broda} implies {broda}. That
would rule out this use of {ba'i} entirely.

> In any case, all of that applies to ".i [tag] bo". ".i [jek tag] bo" is
> related, but has to be analyzed separately.
>=20
> "broda .i brode" makes two independent claims.
> "broda .i [jek] brode" makes one claim.
> "brode .i [tag] bo brode" makes three independent claims according to CLL
> (I would prefer it rather made two.)
>=20
> How many independent claims does "broda .i [jek tag] bo brode" make, and
> what is it or what are they?
>=20
> I'd like it to make just one claim, the jek-logical connection between (1)
> and (3) above. CLL seems to say that it makes two independent claims:
> "broda .i [jek] brode" and (3). But this doesn't work very well when "jek"
> is anything other than "je".

Evidence in CLL is very slim for non-je tensed logical connections. The
only example I know of is the rather strained {mi bevri le dakli .ebake
le gerku .acabo le mlatu} (10:17). I think what's there reads most
naturally as being a case of "TT-skimming" as described earlier, but
I don't think it's enough to force this interpretation.

> > > > >     ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani
> > > > > >     -> ca ro nu mi xagji kei da poi nu mi klama lo zarci zo'u g=
e da
> > > > > >         fasnu gi ba da mi klama lo zdani
> > > > >
> > > > >  ca ro nu mi xagji kei ge ko'a goi lo nu mi klama lo zarci cu
> > > > >  fasnu gi ba ko'a mi klama lo zdani
> >
> > But if ko'a is a constant (kind of an) event, what does {ba ko'a mi
> > klama lo zdani} mean?
> >
> > I understand the original sentence as having multiple pairs of goings,
> > with a time relationship claimed for each pair.
>=20
> ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu
> .i ko'a nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'i fasnu ba ko'e
> .i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci
> .i ko'i nu mi klama lo zdani
>=20
> Every time I'm hungry, X happens.
> X is Y happening and Z happening after Y
> Y is my going to the market
> Z is my going home

I don't see that this helps at all. Now I have to ask: if ko'e is
a constant (kind of an) event, what does {ko'i fasnu ba ko'e} mean?

> We could, instead of saying that X, Y and Z happen every time, talk about
> many different instances such that each happens once, but I think that
> introduces a lot of (sub)entities that are not obviously there in the
> original sentence.

I'm not seeing an alternative.

Martin

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

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlReTowACgkQULC7OLX7LNbnRwCaAwrx9NaohELUGS/m14pyFCIr
t+oAoN3dQvUwh1si2D3lILc/USzyd8bD
=4BB1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx--