From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Dec  4 21:53:50 1995
Reply-To: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon Dec 4 21:53:50 1995
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: roses and tulips - oops!
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <9512042321.AA02482@spiff.gnu.ai.mit.edu> (bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
Status: OR
Message-ID: <fuDYkER3qrD.A.sOG.Gv0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Oops!  I goofed.  In my last message I wrote {me} for {mi} and I put
it in the wrong place.  My apologies.

This changed the grammar of my long bridi so the parser didn't find
any problems.  But after I changed {me} to {mi}, the parser rightfully
rejected the bridi.

It turns out I need to use {pe} instead of {goi} to tie the `scale'
clause to the amount.

Here is the erroneous utterance, with {poi} and {me} marked:

    .i le vi rozgu cu zmadu le va tujli le jei melbi kei
    li pi vo poi ci'u le li'i me dirba
             ^^^              ^^

Here is the utterance changed so it is parses; and appears also to be
semantically correct:

    .i le vi rozgu cu zmadu le va tujli le jei melbi kei
    li pi vo pe le li'i dirba fe mi

    This rose is more than that tulip in the truth abstraction of beauty
    by amount 0.4 on the scale of my experience of emotional valuation.

Here is what the parser shows:

    (i {<le [vi rozgu] KU> cu <zmadu [({<le [va tujli] KU>
    <le [jei (melbi VAU) kei] KU>}
    {<li [(pi vo) BOI] LO'O>
    <pe [le (li'i {dirba <[fe mi] VAU>} KEI) KU] GE'U>}) VAU]>})

{pe} is a restrictive relative phrase marker; my intent here is to
link the {le li'i mi dirba} phrase with {li pi vo}.

I thought earlier that I was doing that by using {poi}, but {poi} must
be followed at the very least by a selbri and then tail terms.  {pe},
on the other hand, need be followed only by a sumti, such as {le li'i
mi dirba}.


Here is a detailed word-by-word translation to English:

    .i le vi rozgu
    <x1> That which I designate as the nearby rose

    cu zmadu
    exceeds/is more than

    le va tujli
    <x2> that which I designate as the medium/small distant tulip

    le jei melbi kei
    <x3> in property/quantity that which I designate
    as the truth value of beauty

    li pi vo
    <x4> by amount/excess the quantity 0.4

    pe
    which is associated with

    le li'i
    that which I designate as the experience of

    dirba fe mi
    is emotionally valued by me.


I am still not entirely sure whether {li pi vo} is correct as the
fourth place of {zmadu}, or whether {pe le li'i dirba fe mi} is
correct; but this is better than before.

zmadu
    x1 exceeds/is more than x2
    in property/quantity x3 (ka/ni)
    by amount/excess x4

dirba
    x1 is emotionally valued by x2

jei
    truth-value abstractor; x1 is truth value of [bridi] under epistemology x2

li'i
    experience abstractor; x1 is x2's experience of [bridi]

pe
    restrictive relative phrase marker: which is associated with