Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Thu, 9 Jul 92 10:37 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA25526; Thu, 9 Jul 92 10:39:39 EDT Received: from rutgers.edu by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA24048; Thu, 9 Jul 92 10:17:50 -0400 Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP id AA08663; Thu, 9 Jul 92 09:28:29 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA19917; Thu, 9 Jul 92 09:22:52 EDT Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA23519; Thu, 9 Jul 92 09:10:13 -0400 Message-Id: <9207091310.AA23519@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3457; Thu, 09 Jul 92 09:09:47 EDT Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf034) id 4777; Thu, 09 Jul 92 09:09:28 EDT Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 13:39:27 BST Reply-To: CJ FINE Sender: Lojban list From: CJ FINE Subject: relatives and quantifiers (Pt 2 of 2) X-To: Lojban list To: John Cowan Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jul 9 10:37:27 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN 5. Indefinite sumti ------------------- [pe'i these are an annoying mistake, complicating the syntax just so that we can omit a word here there and thereby muddy the logical structure.] However, we have them and we can cope. Transformationally, as I understand it eg ze prenu is exactly equivalent to lo ze lo prenu and we have precisely the same difficulties as with any other external quantifier, except that the and the optional are introduced at the same point in the syntax (indefinite_sumti_94), so for example ze prenu poi gleki parses as [ze prenu [poi gleki]] with three constituents, and not explicitly as [ze [prenu [poi gleki]]] in the way ze lo prenu poi gleki does. i.e. the syntax is equivocal here. There is another form of indefinite sumti, which I do not understand: eg voboi ze prenu I can only guess that it is intended to mean lo vo lo ze prenu If this is correct, it has the same problems: it seems to parse as voboi [ze prenu] [poi ....] with the internal qualifier bound tighter to the selbri, so its problems are no different. [In passing, I suggest this form be withdrawn. As far as I know nobody uses it, which is the only justification for keeping an anomalous construction; and the relation between eg voboi prenu and voboi ze prenu is rather odd (one would expect the omitted item in the first to be on the front, rather than the middle!)] 6. Preposed possessives ----------------------- The other anomaly in the current grammar is the preposed possessive (the optional sumti_E_96 in sumti_tail_113): le mi cukta I believe this is precisely equivalent to le cukta pe mi This does not interact problematically with relative clauses, of either type: lo mi cukta poi xunre = lo cukta pe mi zi'e poi xunre restricts the set of books to those which are both mine and red. lo mi cukta noi xunre = lo cukta pe mi zi'e noi xunre restricts the set to books which are mine, and comments that they (my books) are red. But it does not work at all with internal quantifiers. lomi ci cukta which is always used to mean 'my three books', i.e. 'all books, restricted to those belong to me, there are three of these' (= lo ci [cukta pe mi]) is actually defined to be lo mi [ci cukta] = [lo ci cukta] pe mi 'my books, out of the three' , i.e. 'all books (there are three), restricted to those which belong to me' while, *lo ci mi cukta which has some hope of meaning what we want, is not even valid! [It is true that these forms with 'lo' are relatively unusual, and it is more common to use 'le', which once again gets round the logical problems by pragmatics; but I think the problems are there nonetheless.] 7. Summary of the problems -------------------------- There are two basic problems, one of them in two parts. 1a. restrictive relatives belong inside external quantifiers, incidental relatives belong outside. 1b. restrictive relatives belong inside internal quantifiers, incidental relatives belong outside. 2. preposed possessives belong inside internal quantifiers. 8. Suggestions for problem 1 ---------------------------- There are a number of possibilities I can think of. a) Nothing. Thus far, we have found this area to be workable. However, wait until you try to teach the semantics to a computer. This will require rules something like the following: quantified sumti: store the quantifier, and go ahead and interpret the sumti including any relative clauses. Then select the specified number from the set of denoted items. If there are any incidental clauses stored, now apply them. internal quantifier: store the quantifier, and go ahead and interpret the selbri, and carry the set of denoted items forward. relative clauses: interpret each clause in turn. If it is a restrictive, select appropriately from the current set of denoted items. If it is an incidental, remember it. At the end of the relative clauses, if there is an internal quantifier stored, use it to select an appropriate number from the set. Then carry the set forward. Possible, but hideous, and not worthy of something described as a logical language. (And preposed possessives will give a further complication). b) The minimal change I can see is to require all restrictives to precede all incidentals, and modify the grammar as follows to reinterpret almost what we have: sumti_C_93 : sumti_D_95 | indefinite_sumti_94 | sumti_D_95 incidental | restricted_sumti | restricted_sumti ZIhEK_820 incidental ; /* Restricted_sumti needs to be distinguished from sumti_D because we need the ZIhEK after it before any incidental clauses. This distinction has to be carried right down */ sumti_D_95 : sumti_E_96 | quantifier_300 sumti_E_96 ; restricted_sumti : restricted_sumti_A | quantifier_300 restricted_sumti_A ; sumti_E_96 : sumti_F_97 | LAhE_561 sumti_C_93 | NAhE_BO_809 sumti_C_93 ; sumti_F_97 : sumti_H_99 | GEK_807 sumti_90 GIK_816 sumti_C_93 ; restricted_sumti_A : sumti_H_99 restrictive | restricted_description ; sumti_H_99 : anaphora_400 | LA_558 cmene_A_404 | LI_566 MEX_310 LOhO_gap_472 | description_112 | quote_arg_432 ; restrictive : restrictive_A | restrictive ZIhEK_820 restrictive_A ; restrictive_A : POI sentence_40 KUhO_gap_469 : PE term_81 GEhU_gap_464 ; incidental : incidental_A | incidental ZIhEK_820 incidental_A ; incidental_A : NOI_584 sentence_40 KUhO_gap_469 : GOI_542 term_81 GEhU_gap_464 ; description_112 : LA_558 sumti_tail_113 gap_450 | LE_562 sumti_tail_113 gap_450 | LUhI_572 sumti_90 LUhU_gap_463 ; restricted_description : LA_558 sumti_tail_113 restrictive | LE_562 sumti_tail_113 restrictive ; sumti_tail_113 : sumti_tail_A_114 | sumti_E_96 sumti_tail_A_114 | quantifier_300 sumti_90 ; sumti_tail_A_114 : bri_string_130 | quantifier_300 bri_string_130 ; (I have not bothered with following through LAhO, GEKs, "le " or indefinite_sumti) I believe this will produce just the same surface strings as we have at present, except that all incidentals will have to follow all restrictives. The parse will however be different: the incidentals will lie outside the sumti_D, while the restrictives will lie within the scope of the external quantifier, and (in the case of a description without KU) within the scope of the internal quantifier. (Note that selma'o NOI and GOI have to be split, and that ZIhE performs some very strange functions). The only thing in favour of this suggestion is that it does the minimum damage to existing texts. It complicates the syntax remarkably and - in the name of compatibility - confusingly. c) My preference is to introduce three specific locations for relatives, thus so'a lo panono cukta poi mi nelci ku poi dopa'a nelci ku'o noi cfika would parse as {[so'a {[lo panono {cukta poi mi nelci} ku] [poi dopa'a nelci ku'o]}] [noi cfika]} i.e. almost all of those of the hundred books I like that you also like which incidentally are fiction... sumti_C_93 : sumti_D_95 : sumti_D_95 incidental | indefinite_sumti_94 ; indefinite_sumti_94 : indefinite_A | indefinite_A incidental ; indefinite_A : quantifier_300 indefinite_B | indefinite_B ; indefinite_B : sumti_tail_A_114 gap_450 restrictive | sumti_tail_A_114 gap_450 ; /* Or sumti_tail_B both times if we withdraw the doubly-quantified indefinite */ sumti_D_95 : sumti_E_96 | quantifier_300 sumti_E_96 ; sumti_E_96 : sumti_F_97 | LAhE_561 sumti_C_93 | NAhE_BO_809 sumti_C_93 ; sumti_F_97 : sumti_G_98 | GEK_807 sumti_90 GIK_816 sumti_C_93 /* negation of sumti GEK handled by negation of entire sumti in E_96 above */ ; sumti_G_98 : sumti_H_99 | sumti_H_99 restrictive ; sumti_H_99 : anaphora_400 | LA_558 cmene_A_404 | LI_566 MEX_310 LOhO_gap_472 | description_112 | quote_arg_432 ; restrictive : restrictive_A | restrictive ZIhEK_820 restrictive_A ; restrictive_A : PE term_81 GEhU_gap_464 | POI sentence_40 KUhO_gap_469 ; incidental : incidental_A | incidental ZIhEK_820 incidental_A ; incidental_A : GOI_542 term_81 GEhU_gap_464 | NOI_584 sentence_40 KUhO_gap_469 ; description_112 : LA_558 sumti_tail_113 gap_450 | LE_562 sumti_tail_113 gap_450 | LUhI_572 sumti_90 LUhU_gap_463 ; sumti_tail_113 : sumti_tail_A_114 | sumti_E_96 sumti_tail_A_114 | quantifier_300 sumti_90 ; sumti_tail_A_114 : sumti_tail_B | quantifier_300 sumti_tail_B ; sumti_tail_B : bri_string_130 | bri_string_130 restrictive ; d) I considered a solution with arbitrarily nested scopes, each of which was limited by a quantifier and/or restrictives, and each of which could have an incidental attached to it, thus: *[so'oboi { < [so'i { poi se viska tu'a le terdi ku'o } noi melbi ku'o ] > poi mi di'i catlu ke'a ku'o } no'u la ze mensi ] but this requires a much more complicated grammar, and I think it can be managed by structures already existing at a higher level (KE or LUhI). At any rate, I did not investigate its syntax carefully. I think (c) is the best solution. It does not do a lot of injury to existing texts: as long as they don't mix restrictive and incidental clauses, they will still parse; if they do, the two sets need to be sorted out, and the first (restrictive) set ended by a KUhO/GEhU (or by a KU if there is a description). And the scoping will make sense. Note that something like le ci cukta poi mi nelci will parse as le [ci [cukta [poi mi nelci]]] but you can force the restriction outside by [le [ci cukta ku] [poi mi nelci] which I claim is selecting those I like from among the three books. [I note in passing that, since the relationship between quantifiers and relative clauses is here strictly defined, it would not be difficult to add preposed relatives, such as I suggested a few months ago. They would still need to distinguish the placing for restrictives and incidentals. This was NOT the rationale for these suggestions, though they did come out of the analysis I did to understand the lojbangirz's objections to preposed relatives.] 9. Suggestions for problem 2 ---------------------------- a) Do nothing We've coped up to now, but again the semantic rule is nasty. b) Ban the quantifier from a "lemi" type description. The only thing in favour of this is that it won't require things to be changed around; but it will still make some existing utterances invalid, and require a change to the syntax, as well as forbidding something that we might want to say. c) Reverse the [sumti-4] and the [quantifier] in [sumti-tail], to give sumti_tail_113 : sumti_tail_A_114 | quantifier_300 sumti_tail_A_114 | quantifier_300 sumti_90 ; sumti_tail_A_114 : bri_string_130 | sumti_E_96 bri_string_130 ; hence "leci mi cukta" It will take us a little getting used to, but I think this is logically greatly preferable. 10. Conclusion -------------- I have presented at length some logical problems in our current sumti grammar, and made some suggestions: 1. Withdraw the form of indefinite sumti 2. Distinguish restrictive from incidental clauses, and define three distinct places where they may occur: incidental ones only outside quantified arguments, restrictive ones both inside external quantifiers, and inside internal quantifiers in descriptions. 3. Reverse the order of the internal quantifier and the preposed possessive in descriptions. The three suggestions are all independent of one another. I have not looked at vocatives: since they do not include quantifiers, they do not really have a problem, though for consistency they should be changed consistently with any changes to solve problem 1. .ua.ui mi'e kolin