From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun May 07 08:03:00 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 07 May 2006 08:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FckmQ-00012e-Lw for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 08:02:42 -0700 Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FckmO-00012W-UD for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 08:02:42 -0700 Received: (qmail 30506 invoked by uid 60001); 7 May 2006 15:02:39 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=DTlOsHgJg7u62qz3IQhYLBKcraicp6JWI3ejNs0lADirux2Ivop+YjPu89qE7mm27bk58EL21rH9Ah/q/4BJbdlt3zINlZcMcmO+uaUmcjs36scKjo59VoOT6gT2fvkEv5kZAMekXcpbRhNRLycA9LoGITIED6clG2yC00MQAu4= ; Message-ID: <20060507150239.30504.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.152.10] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 07 May 2006 08:02:39 PDT Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 08:02:39 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: ralju bangu be le gligu'e To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560605061713s6feb2346s9275738976800ec7@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11424 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/6/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > Lojban parses, in other > > words, do not give relaiable information > about > > the structure of the utterance; at best they > > accept all and only legitimate utterances of > > Lojban for some different reasons. > > I agree that in Lojban sometimes (not most > times, but yes in a few > cases, sometimes inexplicably) the form of a > sentence, as given by > the grammar, does not match the meaning as > given by the interpretive > convention. I don't think this applies to the > present case however. As I note, the misrepresentation (under simplest interpretation) begins aat the most basic level, with the analysis of simple bridi. > > Now to the case in point. {ralju bangu be le > > gligu'e}. It is a bridi minus one argument > > It is a selbri, not generally a bridi. Any > selbri can by > itself constitute a bridi, so this selbri in > particular could > be used as a bridi, but in general it is just a > selbri, and > especially in this case, as you say: This is what I mean about getting off the point and talking past eachother. To be sure, the expression is a selbri, but it is one because it is a bridi less one argument (and with an incidental arguemnt marker). That is, the interpretation of it is intimately tied to the interpetation of the bridi made of this plus the missing argument. To insist that the logic involved here is somehow different because this is a part of a sumti rather than a bridi is to misunderstand a major portion of the way logic works. > > (I > > assume this is pulled out of {lo ...} or so), > > And what {lo} does is convert a _selbri_ into a > sumti. It needs > its input to have empty slots. {lo} cannot take > a bridi to convert > into a sumti. In Lojban, the way to convert a > bridi into a sumti > is by first converting it into a selbri, with a > member of NU, and > only then into a sumti with a member of LE. > > > so > > it ought to divide [ralj bangu] (the > > predicate/selbri) and [- (be) le gligu'e] > (the > > arguments)(the dash is for the term bound up > in > > {lo} or whatever). > > The whole selbri is bound up in {lo}. The full > structure with all > terminators included is: > > lo [ralju (bangu be le gligu'e ku be'o)] ku > > {lo} takes a selbri (in this case one > consisting of a two component tanru) > and converts it into a sumti. Notice that {be} > is part of the selbri, > in particular > it is part of the second component of the > tanru, it does not atach a sumti > to another sumti, the way {pe} does for > example. The point of this last remark escapes me completely. {be} is used to attach arguments to selbri when that selbri is not the principal one of a bridi (here it is the principal one of a sumti). This does not affect the internal logic of the structure but refers only to the outer structure in which it is embedded. That inner structure is the same as it would be were the {lo} replaced by a sumti and the {be} dropped (as it would be automatically). > > It does instead break into > > [ralju][bangu be le gligu'e], where now the > > predicate is broken up as well as the > arguments > > What do you mean by "as well as the arguments"? > The predicate > (i.e. the selbri) is made up of two components, > yes, a seltau and > a tertau. Which arguments are broken up there? As noted, in a simple bridi, the arguments are regularly broken into two pieces: the ones before the predicate and the ones after, with the latter subordinated to the predicate itself. So there is an interpretation rule that says that these two grammatically separated bits are pulled together into a single logical component (and component in Lojban, the parser aside). The fact that the prepredicate argument is absent does not affect this separation in principle, but here the oint is just that, just as the arguments are generally separated, so in this case even the predicate is broken up. > > (this is all a portion matched by the missing > > first argument of the selbri). > > Of the full selbri, yes. > > > Now, to be sure, > > this grouping could make sense, but it is for > a > > derivative structure, not the primary one, > > pred+arg. > > If the pred+arg structure is primary and the > pred+pred=complex-pred > is specific to Lojban and absent in FOPL, why > would FOPL require > that pred+pred=complex-pred should have > precedence over > pred+arg=complex-pred? Is the pred+pred > structure (absent in FOPL) > even stronger than a primary one like pred+arg? That a propsoition divides into predicate + arguments is fundamental to logic. A change from that needs an explanation and, it seems reasonably, a marker to warn that it is happening. As pointed out, the fact that FOPL does not usually overtly use complex predicates does not mean that they do not occur. And when they do occur, they stick to the predicate-argument division. To be sure, within complex predicates, it is possible to have chunks which are themselves predicate+argument structures -- complete propositions -- but these are always marked. The present conflict is between /y/x (x ralju tz z bangu y) le gligu'e, a simple predicate, and /x(x ralju tz z bangu (be) le gligu'e) a complex one with a term already in place within the predicate, which thus needs to be marked -- and is by conventions about parentheses and leading lambdas. In the latter case, the two arguments -- x and {le gligu'e} are on different levels and are not to be treated as simple arguments to a single predicate but rather the first as argument to a predicate of which the second is already a par. Yet (assuming the corresponding grammatical analysis of the original phrase is correct) the two arguments are presented (assuming the rule needed for the simplest cases) as being on the same level. > > In this structure, the argument to > > {bangu} really is at a different > (subordinate) > > level, down two in Lojban so at leat one in > logic > > (given the logical same level is down one > in > > Lojban). > > Why is argument absorption by a predicate > apriori at a lower level > down than modification of one predicate by > another. How do you > figure that? They seem to me to be independent > notions, and either > could be defined as having precedence over the > other. Look at the structures involved; In the second, tthe {le gligu'e} is already in the structure when the other is added, two levels higher (parallel with {ralju}, not even with {bangu}. In the first the two are both arguments directly to the predicate, so at the same level, logically (and one off grammatically). The relation of predicate to argument just is primary in logic and the relation of one predicate to another is secondary and always depends upon the argument-predicate relation (see the examples above). > > The Lojban that would give this > > structure without a doubt is {ralju be lo > bangu > > be le glicu'e}. Now, given the > indefiniteness of > > sources for tanru, this might be a source > for > > {ralju bangu} but it would be a surprising > one. > > I think the most common expansion of {ralju > broda} is going to > be {ralju (be lo broda be'o) je broda}, i.e. > the same pattern as > with {mutce}, {barda}, {cmalu}, etc. This is a very odd expansion from the point of view of the patterns developed (not that these are binding or exhaustive, merely familiar). As noted it has some peculiar results, like the shift in the categorization of x1 between being a bangu and being a ralju. This shift suggests that the two are not equivalent and thus that the tanru does not come from the longer expression -- or is not to be expanded into it (depending on how you look at the matter). > But that has little to do with the general > question of whether > tanru composition should or should not have > precedence over > argument absorption. It is attempting to reduce that question down to one where we know the answer. But, of course, we already do for logic. The point is that the parser seems to have a different rule, which was the only point I was making. > > We would expect {bangu ralju} on the "lion > > hunter" model, where the missing x1 as a > kind of > > ralju -- as in the long form, rather than a > kind > > of bangu, as in the tanru. > > I sort of gave up on that ideal. I think I am > now resigned > to cmalu/barda/mutce/milxe/mutce/traji/ralju > etc. being > used as modifiers rather than as main > components, even > though their use as main components would give > a > simpler expansion. Well, acknowledging that these take a different rule is quite enough to make my point. Notice that, in general, these can be brought into normal rules but only at the cost of changing the parser rule on precedence of predicate argument and tanru expansion. > > (To be sure, the > > missing x1 IS a knd of bangu, but that is > > inferential from the way that [ralju} works, > not > > sometyhing said in the form alone.) > > Since the form we have is not br but rb, we > are > > justified (even if ultimately wrong) to take > it > > that it has a different source. > > Are you trying to figure out the general > precedence question > from the meaning of this particular example? > There's no guarantee > that the example is good Lojban. That is, of course, another point. It is, however, grammatical Lojban (even according to the parser) and so it is relevant to try and figure out what it might mean. The two lines of attack lead to two different but related answers (indeed, so close that it is hard to figure out what the practical difference might be in this particular case). I am notnaturally, trying to figure out what the precedences are. I know what they are for both logic and the parser and that they are different, which is the point I have been making all along. This case merely illustrates the point (as well as giving a way of almost legitimating the parser rule in logic -- needing only a marker to be OK, just as the logic rule is legitimate in the parser with a marker). > > the obvious one > > is a "white hunter" tanru "x is a language of > y > > and x is a principal one among the languages > of > > y", x([rb]y) rather than x(r[by]). This > > interpretation makes the expression > explainable > > under the same rules as are applied with the > > simple xPy case, whereas the other requires a > new > > rule which is nowhere motivated in the > expression > > itself, contrary to the general principle > that > > deviations from the norm should be marked > and > > the norm unmarked (this latter being violated > as > > well, since, in Lojban, the simple case > requires > > additional marks). > > I don't follow that. What part? {ralju bangu} makes good logical sense with a different tanru structure (source/expansion), but using that base violates the parser structure rules again, making the central point yet once more. > > So, my point that Lojban does a lousy job of > > representing logic comes down to a couple of > > possibilities when illustrated by this case: > 1) > === message truncated === <<> So, my point that Lojban does a lousy job of > representing logic comes down to a couple of > possibilities when illustrated by this case: 1) > the analysis that the grammar gives is what was > intended, in which case the principle about > marking is violated What is the principle about marking?>> That basic forms are unmarked and deviant ones marked. <<>as is the simple rule for > arguments at the same depth ({le glicu'e} appears > to be at the same depth as the missing x1 but is, > in fact, at least one level lower) Appears to whom? Only to someone that assumes that tanru formation comes before argument absorption. If the tanru had been {bangu be lo gligu'e be'o ralju} would the argument absorbed by the seltau still appear at the same depth as the missing x1? Or is it only arguments absorbed by the tertau that appear to be at the same depth?>> The reversed order with the argument attached inside the tanru is quite enough marking to make the situation clear (as would be simply inserting {co} between {ralju} and {bangu} -- though "simply" is ironic here, a hole restructuring being involved). <<> and the > definition of "truth" has to be suitably modified > (despite appearances this is the bear structure > of a one place predicate, rather than a two place > predicate with one place filled). 2) On the > other hand, if what is meant is the two-place > relation "is the principal language of," as > appears from the surface structure, That's not how the surface structure appears to me, given that I know that argument absorption takes precedence. Similarly the surface structure of "3 + 2 * 4" does not suggest to me that the sum is done first, because I know that the convention is that multiplication takes precedence.>> My point exactly -- for logic and semantics, the rule is the opposite. And, for Lojban (not the parser) too: a bridi is selbri + sumti and the bridi is true if the referents of the sumti (in order) are in the referent of the selbri. But under the parser rules, what appear to be the sumti to a selbri are in fact partly such a sumti and partly a part of the selbri itself, so the truth test needs to be redefined somewhat relative to the surface form. <<>then the > grammar's analysis is a total miss -- or, I > suppose, requires yet another set of rules to get > back to what was meant in the first place. In > either way, the transparent connection between > bridi and proposition is even more complicatedx > than it was in the simple cases. Tanru expansion cannot be done automatically, but we already knew that. The precedence between argument absorption with {be} and tanru formation by juxtaposition of two selbri (absent in FOPL) is a matter of convention, not something that can be determined from FOPL.>> Well FOPL does not have simple juxtaposition because it has to be explicit about what the connection is, so one significant part of getting from Lojban to logic is working out what that connection is. The point is simply that the parser analysis is often (I would say generally) misleading about that -- or at least conflicts with other possibilities that fit more naturally with logic. It is not by the way entirely a matter of convention, sinc every case of absorption involves a case of application to be carried out, this giving priority ot application (which does not generally involve a case of absorption). To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.