From cowan Mon Apr 22 12:18:11 1991
Return-Path: <cowan>
Message-Id: <m0jV3a2-00021hC@snark.thyrsus.com>
From: cowan (John Cowan)
Subject: Re: oops! correction
To: lojban-list
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 12:17:31 EDT
In-Reply-To: <9104181535.AA22615@luna.math.ucla.edu>; from "math.ucla.edu!jimc" at Apr 18, 91 8:35 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL13]
Status: RO

jimc@math.ucla.edu (Jim Carter) writes:

> I'm getting into this a bit late, but I think an acceptable choice is
> clear: "he requests (I say/talk about/teach/etc. (the form (which is
> correct) of (a typical journalist writes a typical news[-item])))"  In
> other words, "request an action" rather than "ask a question".  Sorry
> for not producing proper Lojban but, well, I could do it in -gua!spi if
> anyone's interested...

Thanks for the input.  This is certainly a reasonable paraphrase.  I'll
continue to struggle with the indirect question itself.

> Speaking of which, a special "something" analogous to the anonymous
> variable of Prolog could be very useful (and is, in -gua!spi).  Each
> instance is chosen independently; it cannot be copied anaphorically
> (because at least in -gua!spi the anaphor is replaced by a copy of the
> antecedent words, not the referent thereof; I don't know what the exact
> policy on this is in Lojban); and in quantification the anonymous
> variable(s) come last regardless of order in the sentence.  

Except for the special rule about quantification, I'm not clear how this
differs from "zo'e" = "something, an unspecified thing".  Each instance
of this is chosen independently, and although it can be copied by anaphora
it doesn't say much to do so.

Lojban's position on anaphora is that pro-sumti and pro-bridi generally
refer to the same referent as the selected sumti or bridi.  However, the
flag "ra'o" may be used, in the case of pro-bridi, to trigger the
other interpretation.  Examples:

	dei jitfa
	This sentence is false.
	.i go'i
	The previous sentence is false.
	.i go'e ra'o
	This sentence is false too.

The first sentence uses the utterance pro-sumti "dei" to refer to itself,
and asserts of itself that it is false.  (Presumably, the guaspi version
of this would macroexpand to an infinitely long string.)  The second sentence
picks up the first sentence and repeats it using "go'i".

The third sentence uses "go'e" (which repeats the next to last utterance)
but the flag "ra'o" forces anaphora update.  The "dei" no longer refers to
its original context (the first sentence) but is now re-interpreted and
made to refer to the third sentence.
-- 
cowan@snark.thyrsus.com		...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban