[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
response to pc
Some of this stuff (e.g. complaints about su'o/so'u) have apparently
been raised by others, but I think other stuff here is worth reading
(and rereading, in the case of Change 20).
> But now I am told that
>it is built into Lojban that each descriptor *means* some quantifier
>expression. As a logician, I hope that this is not true, since it would
>mean that the "logical language" was ultimately not only illogical but
>unusable. If all descriptors are just quantifiers, then we have no way
>to refer to objects in their absence.
I think we are using "quantifier-expression" as a tanru that does not
mean "expression type of quantifier", but rather as "expression
containing a quantifier". Perhaps "quantified expression" would be less
jarring to your logical ears %^). Or does that lead to the same kind of
misunderstanding?
>But the quantifier=descriptor system as it is laid out is also
>incoherent. We are told that _ci_gerku_ just is _ci_lo_gerku_, which
>just is _ci_lo_so'u_gerku_. From which we can infer that that just is
>_ci_lo_so'u_lo_gerku_ which just is _ci_lo_so'u_lo_so'u_gerku_. And so
>on.
I think you wanted a "su'o" instead of a "so'u" there (i.e. at least
some). But that isn't right since the expansion of "ci lo gerku" is "ci
lo ro gerku", and the ro gerku therein is a grammatically different
construct than the original "ci gerku"
ci gerku is the third rule in the following
sumti_D_94 : sumti_E_95
| sumti_E_95 relative_clauses_121
/* indefinite sumti */
| quantifier_300 selbri_130 gap_450
| quantifier_300 selbri_130
gap_450 relative_clauses_121
;
and we have defined this structure as being a semantically equivalent
(per JCB's SE SORME definition) to a different grammatical structure:
ci lo gerku, which is the second rules of sumti_E and of description,
expanding out to the first rule of sumti_tail_A.
But ci lo ro gerku is identical in structure to the latter, expanding to
the third rule of sumti_tail_A.
There is no rule that permits the semantic expansion of the latter any
further, since it doesn't bounce back to the shorthand "indefinite"
sumti_E.
sumti_E_95 : sumti_F_96
/* outer-quantified sumti */
| quantifier_300 sumti_F_96
;
description_110 : LA_558 sumti_tail_111 gap_450
| LE_562 sumti_tail_111 gap_450
;
sumti_tail_111 : sumti_tail_A_112
/* inner-quantified sumti relative clause */
| relative_clauses_121 sumti_tail_A_112
/* pseudo-possessive
(an abbreviated inner restriction);
note that sumti cannot be quantified */
| sumti_F_96 sumti_tail_A_112
/* pseudo-possessive with outer restriction */
| sumti_F_96 relative_clauses_121 sumti_tail_A_112
;
sumti_tail_A_112 : selbri_130
| selbri_130 relative_clauses_121
/* explicit inner quantifier */
| quantifier_300 selbri_130
/* quantifier both internal to a description,
and external to a sumti thereby made specific */
| quantifier_300 selbri_130 relative_clauses_121
| quantifier_300 sumti_90
;
> And, in the other direction, _ro_lo_ci_lo_nanmu_ just is ultimately
>_ro_ci_nanmu_, which, if not ungrammatical, is at least not very
>sensible.
au contraire. It is not ungrammatical. The number "roci" is a single
quantifier. There has been some debate as to whether it has a
conventional meaning, but I have used it precisely to mean "all 3",
which could also be expressed as "ro lo ci".
On the other hand, we used to allow "roboi ci[boi] nanmu" as a shorthand
for "ro lo ci lo nanmu" but this was explicitly eliminated in Change 20
- see the next to the last paragraph below.
(I figure it is worth reposting the whole change, partly to remind pc
where we stand on inner and outer quantifiers which I think is closely
related to pc's discussion here, and partly because the thorough
analysis of the issue presented is the standard for a change proposal
affecting grammar and/or semantics such that significant amounts of
existing text could be invalidated.)
>I take it that those special cases where quantifiers and descriptors can
>be used to describe the same situation in fairly obviously related ways
>have been generalized to the claim that correspondingly parallel
>sentences involving the two types of expressions will always describe
>the same situations.
No. The only two transformations defined as equivalent involving
quantifiers and descriptors in this way is the definition of JCB's SE
SORME indefinites allowed per sumti_D, and the insertion of default
quantifiers per sumti_E (outer) and sumti_tail_A (inner).
>And this is now thought not to be a lucky break
>but a part of the *meaning* of the expressions. It is not even obvious
>that it works at all (part of the reason for the investigation of which
>this is a digression) and, if it does, it really is a lucky break,
>since, as noted, it is not a part of meaning. Of course, if it does
>work, it will not be a lucky break at all but rather the result of a
>fiat by the creators of the language and, hopefully, one that will be
>made with full awareness of what is being done.
Well, the fiat was by the creator of the language, and debated by you
guys long before I even got involved in Loglan. I had hoped that
both default quantifiers and indefinite sumti had mulled over for logical
consequences so thoroughly that further mulling would be useless.
Of course the interaction of quantifiers, descriptors, and relative
clauses that led to Change 20 was missed. It is the fear that we have a
potential change as nasty to resolve as Change 20 that has contributed
to my near-paralysis in language work pending something finally getting
resolved. My mind revolts against leaving such a major issue unresolved
and moving on.
| CHANGE 20
|
| CURRENT LANGUAGE:
|
| Relative clauses on descriptions are grouped by the parser so as to
| attach to sumti before outside quantifiers are put on. The actual
| semantics of what is being attached has been pragmatically determined,
| and analysis has now shown that this can theoretically be
| vague/ambiguous or even limiting to expression in the language, though
| workarounds probably exist for all problems raised.
|
| PROPOSED CHANGE:
|
| Allow the distinction between a relative clause attaching to the "inside
| set", excluding external quantifiers, of a description. A relative
| clause outside the KU will refer to the entire sumti. A relative clause
| inside the KU will generally be preposed so as to parallel the
| historical pseudo-possessive which is recognized as a transformation of an
| inside-set relative clause. However, postposed relative clauses
| will be inside by default, matching the way in which the parser inserts
| elidable terminators (i.e. only if needed).
|
| Comparable expansion of the relative clause possibilities inside vocatives
| is incorporated in this proposal.
|
| RATIONALE:
|
| The current grammar appears to group relative clauses with the "inside
| set" of a description sumti, that portion of a sumti including from the
| LE to the KU which includes the inside quantifier and not the outside
| quantifier. In the case of non-restrictive "lo" descriptions, and
| possibly some others, this is not what is intended.
|
| Example: "pa lo sipna noi melbi" groups as "pa <lo sipna noi melbi>"
| apparently claiming that all sleepers are beautiful.
|
| The problem manifests itself in various forms more completely documented
| in a long paper by Colin Fine, but the bottom line is that the existing
| grammar is vague as to what a relative clause attaches to, and there are
| definable cases where this vagueness can lead to unacceptable ambiguity.
|
| The proposed solution has the secondary virtues of 1) making
| pseudo-possessives visibly match the parallel inside-set relative
| clauses, but without overt relative clause marking; 2) making it obvious
| how to to express a pseudo-possessive with a quantifier ("le ci mi
| broda" is a complete sentence and not a sumti, since "le ci mi" is a
| complete sumti. With preposed inside-set relative clauses, "le pecimi
| broda" is unambiguously a sumti.); and 3) the problematical [quantifier]
| [quantifier] [description] is eliminated from the language (analysis can
| give a meaning for this expression of [quantifier] lo [quantifier] lo
| [description], and it has even been used once or twice, but experience
| has shown that the analysis is counterintuitive to many people, who see
| also [quantifier1] lo [description] [quantifier2]-mei as plausible).
|
| Postposed inside relatives are allowed in all descriptions, so
| the preposed/postposed distinction becomes a forethought/afterthought
| distinction, which can be valuable. Existing texts retain
| their currently official inside-relative interpretation (unless the KU
| is explicitly present, a rarity), which is arguably desirable as the
| default (though it must be recognized that there are text examples where
| the speaker obviously wanted to apply the relative clause to the
| externally quantified sumti.) The negative tradeoff of this is that KU
| becomes ALWAYS required when you want an external relative clause.
|
| Preposed relative clauses (but not relative phrases) will almost always
require
| a terminator, though monosyllabic "vau" is usually as applicable as "ku'o".
|
| The following analyzes all definite and indefinite cases,
| giving English translations of the examples to show that the Lojban
| interpretation is natural at least for English speakers (recognizing
| that it may not be so for others).
|
| Descriptor External internal noi/poi
| quantifier quantifier
| present present
| le no no poi
| le sipna poi melbi
| [ro (le su'o sipna poi melbi ku)]
| The sleepers who are beautiful...
| le no no noi
| le sipna noi melbi
| [ro (le su'o sipna noi melbi ku)]
| The sleepers, who are beautiful...
| le no yes poi
| le ci sipna poi melbi
| ro (le ci sipna poi melbi ku)
| The 3 sleepers who are beautiful...
| le no yes noi
| le ci sipna noi melbi
| ro (le ci sipna noi melbi ku)
| The 3 sleepers, who are beautiful...
| le yes no poi
| ci le sipna poi melbi
| [ci (le su'oci sipna poi melbi ku)]
| 3 of the sleepers who are beautiful...
| (the English is ambiguous as to whether all of the sleepers
| are beautiful or just the 3. The Lojban is unambiguously talking
| about all of them)
| le yes no noi
| ci le sipna noi melbi
| [ci (le su'oci sipna noi melbi ku)]
| 3 of the sleepers, who are beautiful...
| (The English is again ambiguous but more plausibly suggests
| merely the 3).
| le yes yes poi
| re le ci sipna poi melbi
| re (le ci sipna poi melbi ku)
| re le ci sipna ku poi melbi
| [re (le ci sipna ku)] poi melbi
| Two of the 3 sleepers who are beautiful...
| (The English is totally ambiguous as to what is being restricted,
| and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on
| presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the
| distinction when important.)
| le yes yes noi
| re le ci sipna noi melbi
| re (le ci sipna noi melbi ku)
| re le ci sipna ku noi melbi
| [re (le ci sipna ku)] noi melbi
| Two of the 3 sleepers, who are beautiful...
| (The English is totally ambiguous as to which sleepers are beautiful,
| and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on
| presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the
| distinction when important.)
| lo no no poi
| lo sipna poi melbi
| [su'o (lo ro sipna poi melbi ku)]
| Sleepers who are beautiful...
| lo no no noi
| lo sipna noi melbi
| [su'o (lo ro sipna noi melbi ku)]
| Sleepers, who are beautiful...
| lo no yes poi
| lo ci sipna poi melbi
| su'o (lo ci sipna poi melbi ku)
| At least one of the 3 in the universe that sleep who are beautiful...
| (Unusual in English, but unambiguous because of "are" agreement;
| the following gives a more likely example:)
| lomi ci cukta poi melbi
| su'o (lomi ci cukta poi melbi ku)
| At least one of my 3 books that are beautiful...
| (The essential point is that quantifying the inside set emphasizes
| it so that the restriction applying to it seems natural - natural
| enough that English requires forcing an indefinite description if
| there is an inside quantifier.)
| lo no yes noi
| lo ci sipna noi melbi
| su'o (lo ci sipna noi melbi ku)
| At least one of the 3 in the universe that sleep, who are beautiful...
| (Extremely rare in English since it makes a universal claim about
| about number and incidental property, but unambiguous because
| of "are" agreement.)
| lo yes no poi
| ci lo sipna poi melbi
| [ci (lo rosu'oci sipna poi melbi ku)]
| 3 sleepers who are beautiful...
| (With no inside quantifier, the English becomes an indefinite,
| and there is no suggestion that there is an inside-set, much less
| that the relative clause relates to it. Likewise in the Lojban
| which reduces to the indefinite
| ci sipna poi melbi
| (which under this change will have the ku after the melbi to separate
| from other sumti)
| *** but it doesn't ***
| The Lojban is unambiguously talking only about the 3, since there
| is no internal quantifier to put secondary focus on the inside set)
| There is a stilted English form that can force the theoretical
| ambiguity to the fore:
| ?Three of sleepers who are beautiful...
| which does ambiguously suggest the inside-set is the restricted one,
| but we would normally expect this to be expressed:
| Three of those sleepers who are beautiful...
| which clearly has an internal restriction and could not be easily
| modelled under 3) in Lojban, requiring preposed relatives or
| explicit internal quantification to force the relative clause inside
| ci lo ro sipna poi melbi
| ci (lo ro sipna poi melbi)
| which I would contend is a better reflection of the English "those"
| anyway.
| lo yes no noi
| ci lo sipna noi melbi
| [ci (lo rosu'oci sipna noi melbi ku)]
| 3 sleepers, who are beautiful...
| (The English again becomes an indefinite and the incidental clause
| goes outside. This time, even the English "those" form remains
| ambiguous and odd-sounding
| ?3 of sleepers, who are beautiful...
| ?3 of those sleepers, who are beautiful...
| unless you go to
| 3 who sleep, who are beautiful...
| which is better reflected in Lojban as
| ci da poi sipna zi'e noi melbi
| which accurately puts the relative clause outside
| or
| 3 of those who sleep, who are beautiful
| which only forces the English back into ambiguity as to which are
| beautiful
| lo yes yes poi
| re lo ci sipna poi melbi
| re (lo ci sipna poi melbi ku)
| re lo ci sipna ku poi melbi
| [re (lo ci sipna ku)] poi melbi
| Two of 3 sleepers who are beautiful...
| (The English is totally ambiguous as to what is being restricted,
| and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on
| presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the
| distinction when important.)
| lo yes yes noi
| re lo ci sipna noi melbi
| re (lo ci sipna noi melbi ku)
| re lo ci sipna ku noi melbi
| [re (lo ci sipna ku)] noi melbi
| Two of 3 sleepers, who are beautiful...
| (The unlikely English is totally ambiguous as to which sleepers are
| beautiful, and the Lojban in this case makes the distinction based on
| presence of the ku, forcing the speaker to think about the
| distinction when important.)
|
| IMPORTANT NOTE: Change 20 is sufficiently major, affecting nearly all
| of the sumti grammar rules, that there may be unforeseen side effects.
| This seems unlikely, as analysis so far has shown that the only
| reduction in expression is the confusing [quantifier] [quantifier]
| [description] which has a much clearer equivalent.
|
| However, the introduction of such a major change at this late stage of
| the project makes it highly controversial, as any problems may show up
| too late to be easily fixed (i.e. after books are published).
lojbab