From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat May 06 17:17:13 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 99373 invoked from network); 7 May 2006 00:17:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 May 2006 00:17:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 May 2006 00:17:12 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcWxF-00026K-7f for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:16:57 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcWtz-00024t-Qd; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:13:36 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 06 May 2006 17:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcWtY-00024X-Jx for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:13:08 -0700 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.238]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FcWtU-00024N-Eq for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:13:08 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i13so840679wra for ; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.102.11 with SMTP id z11mr780337wrb; Sat, 06 May 2006 17:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.126.18 with HTTP; Sat, 6 May 2006 17:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560605061713s6feb2346s9275738976800ec7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 21:13:03 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20060506215157.27008.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605050746k9075a41wec53b8772a6b3cb8@mail.gmail.com> <20060506215157.27008.qmail@web81309.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11419 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: ralju bangu be le gligu'e X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=T3E_Fc063r_F6nvHdmNNRIMZSIU7aPLshQs_KAALYQKXKL5efA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25835 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. > 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: > (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. > 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? > (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? > 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 at logical same level is doen 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. > 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. But that has little to do with the general question of whether tanru composition should or should not have precedence over argument absorption. > 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. > (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. > 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. > 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? >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? > 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. >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. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.