Received: from mail-la0-f64.google.com ([209.85.215.64]:56010) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XnElN-0000zH-RL for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:45:53 -0800 Received: by mail-la0-f64.google.com with SMTP id pn19sf602824lab.9 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:45:38 -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=Ekn69wPBIcC2rcT+YoqH9UC/TjNNPqmMCPIQFJrxhDM=; b=ZnXOKt1pR2fG+bJrmvnmoIGpBG+2GP5pDbH4k/DAo7BrpdTQc+pXCTiL+HI0vJ6RpF D6ohReqg1ky8cSxx7ml15+lItEbYHjtV0OkUevtQd5ozB8ajcCysup+gs0EZFlvMaOku ndlsNQL2tLgEQ4muPM2uQ1k10nWsxmBHDqqHIr+ydc9ohkMPMUzDhuiQnAjB5Sjz6O5x pZYZXDjY9QpMRvRo4auagU3UDYsx1zsPFAOdXpTgGnosf5yPze4V0sy/vef0/+GSLADd fM3ot4yPldvEkDU41+8E9AFS1m9f8gE1NWlIno/fnwHroKhArT89g1tdH1vrJV/wZ+oq g0qw== X-Received: by 10.152.170.226 with SMTP id ap2mr6181lac.3.1415486738765; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:45:38 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.29.5 with SMTP id f5ls320742lah.62.gmail; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:45:37 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.38.101 with SMTP id f5mr3487982lbk.7.1415486737469; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:45:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id el8si336376wib.3.2014.11.08.14.45.37 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:45:37 -0800 (PST) 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; Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ex7so7455547wid.10 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:45:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.63.79 with SMTP id e15mr29960128wjs.79.1415486737338; Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:45:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.105.201 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Nov 2014 14:45:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20141108220257.GA31242@gonzales> References: <20141104010958.GA27496@gonzales> <20141105035457.GA7768@gonzales> <20141106232818.GB1433@gonzales> <20141108030052.GC8542@gonzales> <20141108171036.GA10866@gonzales> <20141108220257.GA31242@gonzales> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 19:45:37 -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::231 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=047d7b86dada29d8aa050760b0cf X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --047d7b86dada29d8aa050760b0cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > But tags can have semantics which go beyond having something appearing > in the x1 role of an underlying relation, with the rest left up to > context. That may be all a fi'o tag does, but e.g. if ko'a is an event, > then {ba ko'a brode} is an explicitly tensed claim of brode in the > future of ko'a. > Some tags, yes. Tense tags are especially well specified, which is reflected in their underlying relation being a "se-gismu", because the x1 of the gismu is the argument of the tag as bridi operator. But other tags are much more vague. > {[tag] [[sumti]]} is a modal operator, whose precise semantics are > entirely up to the definition of the tag. We called this "(i)" upthread. > We agree on this really, don't we? > I suppose, but it would seem that it can be a context dependent operator at least for some tags. > I don't think it's too unreasonable for ba'i to provide a relation such > > that basti1 relates to the negation of basti2 rather than to basti2 > > directly, since this relation has to be contextual anyway. So I wouldn't > > say it doesn't work with (3'), at worst it takes more work than just > > assuming that "lo nu mi na klama lo zarci" has to take the basti2 role. > > I don't see what reasonable general definition of {ba'i ko'a broda} > would make this work. If for any broda it implies the negation of broda, > then {ba'i ko'a na broda} has to imply broda. If it's only for > "positive" broda that it implies the negation of broda, then we'd have > to have a notion of "positive"... and I doubt there's a good one. > It could be something like "replacing with ko'a whichever is the case of lo nu broda and lo nu na broda" or "ko'a basti lo nu xu kau broda". > > 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. > > > > Or we could still have {[tag] [[sumti]] broda} implying {broda}, but then > > (3') not always equivalent to (3) and it would be plain (3), or possibly > > > > (3'') lo nu broda cu xo'i [tag] do'e lo nu brode (for tense tags) > > lo nu brode cu xo'i [tag] do'e lo nu broda (for non-tense tags) > > > > that expands the tag connective. There doesn't seem to be a strong reason > > to disallow (a). > > Using anything like {do'e} would be a move of last resort for me... > For many tags do'e can be well defined, but I don't see how you can completely get rid of do'e/co'e/etc for a general rule, unless we have a context-independent binary relation defined for every tag. > > ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu > > ,i ko'a nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'i fasnu > > ;i ko'i nu ko'o balvi ko'e > > .i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci > > .i ko'o nu mi klama lo zdani > > OK... now I have to ask what {ko'o balvi ko'e} means! > > I expect it to be time-independent - if it holds at some time, then it > holds at all times. But then your expansion doesn't have the intended > meaning. Must "ko'o balvi ko'e" be time-independent? Can't an event happen sometimes before and sometimes after another? That would seem to be a requirement only for one-instance events. 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. --047d7b86dada29d8aa050760b0cf Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> = wrote:

But tags can have semantics which go beyond having something appeari= ng
in the x1 role of an underlying relation, with the rest left up to
context. That may be all a fi'o tag does, but e.g. if ko'a is an ev= ent,
then {ba ko'a brode} is an explicitly tensed claim of brode in the
future of ko'a.

Some tags, yes. Ten= se tags are especially well specified, which is reflected in their underlyi= ng relation being a "se-gismu", because the x1 of the gismu is th= e argument of the tag as bridi operator. But other tags are much more vague= .
=C2=A0
{[tag] [[sumti]]} is a modal operator, whose precise semantics are
entirely up to the definition of the tag. We called this "(i)" up= thread.
We agree on this really, don't we?

= I suppose, but it would seem that it can be a context dependent operator at= least for some tags.=C2=A0

> I don't think it's too unreasonable for ba'i to provide a = relation such
> that basti1 relates to the negation of basti2 rather than to basti2 > directly, since this relation has to be contextual anyway. So I wouldn= 't
> say it doesn't work with (3'), at worst it takes more work tha= n just
> assuming that "lo nu mi na klama lo zarci" has to take the b= asti2 role.

I don't see what reasonable general definition of {ba'i ko&#= 39;a broda}
would make this work. If for any broda it implies the negation of broda, then {ba'i ko'a na broda} has to imply broda. If it's only for<= br> "positive" broda that it implies the negation of broda, then we&#= 39;d have
to have a notion of "positive"... and I doubt there's a good = one.

It could be something like "r= eplacing with ko'a whichever is the case of lo nu broda and lo nu na br= oda" or "ko'a basti lo nu xu kau broda".

<= /div>
> > 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 se= mantics
> > of non-tense tags that {[tag] [[sumti]] broda} implies {broda}. T= hat
> > would rule out this use of {ba'i} entirely.
>
> Or we could still have {[tag] [[sumti]] broda} implying {broda}, but t= hen
> (3') not always equivalent to (3) and it would be plain (3), or po= ssibly
>
>=C2=A0 (3'') lo nu broda cu xo'i [tag] do'e lo nu brode= =C2=A0 (for tense tags)
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 lo nu brode cu xo'i [tag] do'e lo n= u broda (for non-tense tags)
>
> that expands the tag connective. There doesn't seem to be a strong= reason
> to disallow (a).

Using anything like {do'e} would be a move of last resort for me= ...

For many tags do'e can be well = defined, but I don't see how you can completely get rid of do'e/co&= #39;e/etc for a general rule, unless we have a context-independent binary r= elation defined for every tag.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
> ca ro nu mi xagji kei ko'a fasnu
> ,i ko'a nu ge ko'e fasnu gi ko'i fasnu
> ;i ko'i nu ko'o balvi ko'e
> .i ko'e nu mi klama lo zarci
> .i ko'o nu mi klama lo zdani

OK... now I have to ask what {ko'o balvi ko'e} means!

I expect it to be time-independent - if it holds at some time, then it
holds at all times. But then your expansion doesn't have the intended meaning.

Must "ko'o balvi ko'e= " be time-independent? Can't an event happen sometimes before and = sometimes after another? That would seem to be a requirement only for one-i= nstance events.

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.
--047d7b86dada29d8aa050760b0cf--