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 18:22:04 -0500
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141108232204.GB31242@gonzales>
References: <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>
 <20141108171036.GA10866@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2f2=a15PgmdCZyfy5avaeQaLVaHmVUejzatJJDYmWa71g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141108220257.GA31242@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2d3A84Syh_MROXxHBH3vXqyUaoN3sm04S7PQX8sRRS9DA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dTy3Mrz/UPE2dbVg"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2d3A84Syh_MROXxHBH3vXqyUaoN3sm04S7PQX8sRRS9DA@mail.gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: trati
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: -


--dTy3Mrz/UPE2dbVg
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Saturday, 2014-11-08 at 19:45 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.=
com>:

> On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>=20
> > > I don't think it's too unreasonable for ba'i to provide a relation su=
ch
> > > that basti1 relates to the negation of basti2 rather than to basti2
> > > directly, since this relation has to be contextual anyway. So I would=
n'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 rol=
e.
> >
> > 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.
>=20
> 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".

Aha, so a kind of modal version of {u}. Yes, that seems reasonable.

But then I guess {se ba'i} would be like {se.u}, introducing a seltcita
sumti only to then ignore it for logical purposes. So yes, I think I see
what you were saying - in (b) {mi stali lo zdani .i se ba'i bo mi klama
lo zarci}, it's odd to have it claim {mi klama lo zarci}.

But I can't say this strikes me as a strong argument that it shouldn't.
There will always be examples which would have worked had the semantics
been different.

> > > 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 possi=
bly
> > >
> > >  (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 re=
ason
> > > to disallow (a).
> >
> > Using anything like {do'e} would be a move of last resort for me...
>=20
> 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.

The tag semantics don't have to always be wholly context-independent.
But since many tags (e.g. tenses) have quite specific semantics, I think
we should avoid introducing further sources of vagueness.

> > > 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.
>=20
> Must "ko'o balvi ko'e" be time-independent? Can't an event happen sometim=
es
> before and sometimes after another? That would seem to be a requirement
> only for one-instance events.

I don't understand. Could you explain in this example at what times
{ko'o balvi ko'e} would hold?

Martin

--dTy3Mrz/UPE2dbVg
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlRepZwACgkQULC7OLX7LNZ1uACfTFTnciR+kp3Ty+Q+SbxVv5pF
wQAAoK5oZAh2jIk9ogv/17zsb4SOHVU9
=2zSt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--dTy3Mrz/UPE2dbVg--