Received: from mail-ie0-f183.google.com ([209.85.223.183]:63523) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YGzYe-0003hM-5K for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:35:37 -0800 Received: by mail-ie0-f183.google.com with SMTP id ar1sf12742099iec.0 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:35:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version:content-type :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=9HWUuQVTrxPbNvOZzDoaomMsKVEn5aMQ9tTljH/P89c=; b=JbqtvjDuIGeDZ1m6iwOOYOXkq+ccWkoSdspZSLtZ88+NCkLOQ0rajA3CxVjMBLKdn1 YH9wnKywcbJ9fvlGnIaJavV1N2mqnBBeRxACp5nEteYFrQdCVdxXavfdw/z72i0KsxMX OcOhA/BR277skb+oVZ8eT1dVWypBK3KGvczjbiQuTvlSDgmwz3Wuo+uCi/a78Ug55xuK xhjfa1WKXKcCo+w4khL/+CLSmNXMoFnDFmBhg1hlMfwwCriQcXZYbWB5V6bcC8e5eYAm X3C9Cw4tBzEdvTYsiF8XSm8OIUcTRiYaDIIXaLugON31DSWOlQQ+CM5OQfvrMRpurtSm 6WFg== X-Received: by 10.50.78.133 with SMTP id b5mr72234igx.4.1422578130294; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:35:30 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.57.42 with SMTP id f10ls372749igq.14.canary; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:35:30 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.55.98 with SMTP id r2mr2560664igp.7.1422578130093; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:35:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.125.132 with SMTP id y4msqar; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:20:42 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.106.8 with SMTP id d8mr48463qgf.7.1422573642195; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:20:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:20:41 -0800 (PST) From: Dmitry Kourmyshov To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <5b7e8a06-fb08-49c5-8726-dfd32a21699f@googlegroups.com> Subject: [lojban] Semantics of modals MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_65_1022252296.1422573641891" X-Original-Sender: dmitry.kourmyshov@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: , X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) X-Spam_score: 3.8 X-Spam_score_int: 38 X-Spam_bar: +++ X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: I am not sure how modals work. I just learning the language and at first thought about posting this to lojban-beginners, but was adviced on #lojban to post it here, as the argument could be non-trivial. [...] Content analysis details: (3.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: googlegroups.com] 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in googlegroups.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.223.183 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (dmitry.kourmyshov[at]gmail.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED 2.0 HTML_OBFUSCATE_20_30 BODY: Message is 20% to 30% HTML obfuscation 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 1.0 FR_3TAG_3TAG RAW: Looks like 3 small tags. -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different ------=_Part_65_1022252296.1422573641891 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_66_1125162872.1422573641891" ------=_Part_66_1125162872.1422573641891 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am not sure how modals work. I just learning the language and at first=20 thought about posting this to lojban-beginners, but was adviced on #lojban= =20 to post it here, as the argument could be non-trivial. The firtst two alternatives I see are: M1. Modals add additional places to predicate, creating new predicate=20 related to basic, but with different place-structure: 5.1) mi viska do fi'o kanla [fe'u] le zunle Basic predicate "x1 sees/views/perceives visually x2 under conditions x3."= =20 modified into "x1 sees/views/perceives visually x2 under conditions x3, the= =20 eye being xm" 6.1) mi viska do sepi'o le zunle kanla The same predicate is modified into "x1 sees/views/perceives visually x2=20 under conditions x3, using xm as a tool" M2. Modals introduce additional predicates, linked to the main one...=20 somehow. Example 6.1) would be interpreted as: "P1: x1 sees/views/perceives visually x2 under conditions x3. P2:using x1 uses/employs xm [tool, apparatus, machine, agent, acting=20 entity, material] for purpose (du'u) P1." It is difficult to interpret example 5.1) in such a way, as {kanla} does=20 not offer place to link subordinate predicate directly, as is the case with= =20 the third place of {pilno}: "x1 is a/the eye [body-part] of x2" =E2=80=94 h= ere, we=20 only can connect x2 of {kanla} with x1 of {viska}, but not with whole P1 Modal connectives seem to support this alternative: 7.1) le spati cu banro ri'a le nu do djacu dunda fi le spati 7.5) do djacu dunda fi le spati seri'a le nu ri banro 7.6) le nu do djacu dunda fi le spati cu rinka le nu le spati cu banro 7.7) le spati cu banro .iri'abo do djacu dunda fi le spati All sentences under this interpretation have same predicate structure: P1 :x1 grows/expands [an increasing development] to size/into form {zo'e}= =20 from {zo'e}. P2: {nu} P1 (event/state) effects/physically causes effect {nu} P3=20 (event/state) under conditions {zo'e}. P3: y1 [donor] (water-type of) gives/donates gift/present {zo'e} to=20 recipient/beneficiary y3 [without payment/exchange]. but differ on which predicates are claimed and which are held as=20 abstractions. (By the way, am I right in understanding what only those modals which have= =20 short BAI form could be used in connectives?) There could be third alternative, or at least, additional factor to=20 consider that a recent discussion on #lojban touched. If multiple modals=20 are present in the same statement, then the order of their appearance could= =20 matter, as they modify the main predicate one-by-one, creating scopes: L1) {se pi'o lo forca ka'ai lo gerku mi citka} Using a fork as a tool (accompanied by a dog (I am eating)) L2) {ka'ai lo gerku se pi'o lo forca mi citka} Accompanied by a dog (using a fork as a tool (I am eating)) This view seem to be more easily combined with the first of my alternatives= =20 above, as ka'ai transforms {citka} "x1 eats x2" into "x1 eats x2,=20 accompanied by x3.", but still difference between full sencences is=20 unclear, as they have same places. Second alternative, though, preserve the= =20 structure of scopes fully =E2=80=94 but forces to introduce compound predic= ates: "P1 : x1 eats/ingests/consumes (transitive verb) x2. P2: x1 is with/accompanies/is a companion of xm1, in=20 state/condition/enterprise P1 (event/state). P1&2: P1 & P2 P3:using x1 uses/employs xm2 [tool, apparatus, machine, agent, acting=20 entity, material] for purpose (du'u) P1&2." (and vice versa for L2) ) I have to admit what view M2 is influenced by how modals are handled in gua= =20 sp=C3=AC and T=C3=B2aq Dz=C5=A9, but also seem to be supported, as I mentio= ned before, by=20 how modal connectives work in lojban. So what do you think, which view is= =20 more correct? Or is there some other interpretation? --=20 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 e= mail 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. ------=_Part_66_1125162872.1422573641891 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am not sure how modals work. I just learning the languag= e and at first thought about posting this to lojban-beginners, but was advi= ced on #lojban to post it here, as the argument could be non-trivial.
The firtst two alternatives I see are:

M1. Modals add additional p= laces to predicate, creating new predicate related to basic, but with diffe= rent place-structure:

5.1)   mi vi=
ska do fi'o kanla [fe'u] le zunle

Basic predicate "x1 s= ees/views/perceives visually x2 under conditions x3."= modified into "x1 sees/views/perceives visually x2 u= nder conditions x3, the eye being xm"

6.1)   mi viska do sepi'o le zunle kanla
The same predicate is modified into "x1 sees/views/perceives vi= sually x2 under conditions x3, using xm as= a tool"

M2. Modals introduce additional predicates, linked to the m= ain one... somehow. Example 6.1) would be interpreted as:

"P1: = x1 sees/views/perceives visually x2 under condi= tions x3.
P2:using x1 uses/employs xm [tool, apparatus, machine, agent, acting entity, mater= ial] for purpose (du'u) P1."

It is difficult t= o interpret example 5.1) in such a way, as {kanla} does not offer place to = link subordinate predicate directly, as is the case with the third place of= {pilno}: "x1 is a/the eye [body-part] of x2" =E2=80= =94 here, we only can connect x2 of {kanla} with x1 o= f {viska}, but not with whole P1

Modal connectives seem t= o support this alternative:

7.1)  =
 le spati cu banro ri'a le nu do djacu dunda fi le spati


7.5)   do djacu dunda fi le spa=
ti seri'a le nu ri banro

7.6)   =
le nu do djacu dunda fi le spati cu rinka le nu le spati cu banro

= 
7.7)   le spati cu banro .iri'abo do djac=
u dunda fi le spati

All sentences under this interpretation h= ave same predicate structure:

P1 :x1 grows/exp= ands [an increasing development] to size/into form {zo'e} from {= zo'e}.
P2: {nu} P1 (event/state) effect= s/physically causes effect {nu} P3 (event/state) under condition= s {zo'e}.
P3: y1 [donor] (water-type of) gives/don= ates gift/present {zo'e} to recipient/beneficiary y3 = [without payment/exchange].

but differ on which predicates are claim= ed and which are held as abstractions.

(By the way, am I right in un= derstanding what only those modals which have short BAI form could be used = in connectives?)


There could be third alternative, or at least, = additional factor to consider that a recent discussion on #lojban touched. = If multiple modals are present in the same statement, then the order of the= ir appearance could matter, as they modify the main predicate one-by-one, c= reating scopes:

L1) {se pi'o lo forca ka'ai lo gerku mi citka}
Us= ing a fork as a tool (accompanied by a dog (I am eating))

L2) {ka'ai= lo gerku se pi'o lo forca mi citka}
Accompanied by a dog (using a fork = as a tool (I am eating))

This view seem to be more easily combined = with the first of my alternatives above, as ka'ai transforms {citka} "x1 eats x2" into "x1 eats x2, accomp= anied by x3.", but still difference between full sencences is un= clear, as they have same places. Second alternative, though, preserve the s= tructure of scopes fully =E2=80=94 but forces to introduce compound predica= tes:

"P1 : x1 eats/ingests/consumes (transitiv= e verb) x2.
P2: x1 is with/accompanies/= is a companion of xm1, in state/condition/enterprise P1 (event/state).
P1&2: P1 & P2=
P3:using x1 uses/employs xm2 [tool, ap= paratus, machine, agent, acting entity, material] for purpose (du'u) P= 1&2."

(and vice versa for L2) )

I have to admit wha= t view M2 is influenced by how modals are handled in gua sp=C3=AC and T=C3= =B2aq Dz=C5=A9, but also seem to be supported, as I mentioned before, by ho= w modal connectives work in lojban. So what do you think, which view is mor= e correct? Or is there some other interpretation?

--
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.
------=_Part_66_1125162872.1422573641891-- ------=_Part_65_1022252296.1422573641891--