[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e

At 02:00 AM 1/30/03 +0000, Martin Bays wrote:

What I want to know is: for each of the three types of sumbasti - DA,
lerfu-word and KOhA - under what circumstances are they interpreted as
        (a) referring to a previous assignment
     or (b) being assigned anew (according to quantification and
                restrictive relative clauses)
     or (c) being ungrammatical/incomprehensible
     or (d) something else


Assuming that John in CLL doesn't override something I say here:
DA always is implicitly presumed to be quantified in some prenex, whether that prenex is explicitly stated or not. The rules for what scope level an implicit prenex is at, should be in CLL. Only DA and DA-with-subscripts are inherently presumed to be bound (quantified) variables.
An explicit prenex (or the implicit prenex generated by the scope rules) has scope over the shortest-scope sentence/bridi it is attached to, though this scope can be formally extended in afterthought using I+JE (the connection implied by I alone may or may not be a logical one, which is why it is considered "informal"), or in forethought using TUhE/TUhU.
lerfu and KOhA, which are not inherently bound (quantified) variables remain assigned indefinitely, until reassigned using GOI or an explicit prenex citation or released using a DAhO or a NIhO-construct of the level wherein the value was first assigned (i.e. if the text is marked with ni'oni'o, then ni'o alone does not release the values.) 


for each of the following uses
        (i) [sumbasti] ninmu
        (ii) [sumbasti] poi remna cu ninmu
In these circumstances, KOhA/lerfu are not presumed to be quantified variables, but are merely names/symbols for some fixed assignments. 


        (iii) [sumbasti] zo'u [sumbasti] ninmu
        (iv) [sumbasti] poi remna zo'u [sumbasti] ninmu
For these circumstances, KOhA lerfu should have scope determined as per any other prenex variable - determined by the scope of the prenex. 


And also - I'm assuming that plain [sumbasti] is equivalent to su'o pa
[sumbasti]. If not, what difference does putting a quantifier before the
[sumbasti] make?
For DA that is correct. Since lerfu/KOhA are unbound, and presumed already-defined, I think they have implicit quantifier "ro" I guess that you COULD use a lerfu as a bound variable by *explicitly* quantifying it in a prenex. 


        - Does using {[sumbasti] bi'u} change anything? How about
{sumbasti da'o}?
bi'u was intended primarily to deal with "le" descriptions, I think to deal with the sorts of things we convey in English with "a"/"the" in alternation. 


        - In the case of lerfu-words, does previous assignment with goi
have a different effect from previous assignment just by use of a
word/phrase with the right initial letters?
Only with goi is assignment explicitly defined. Implicit assignment by using the right letters is informal and subject to whatever misunderstandings the listener might make as for whether a given lerfu is being reassigned or not. Normally we don't use informal initials (without GOI) except for very short term ad-hoc situations where there will be no confusion what the referent is. 


Personally, I think the position which makes most sense is to say that for
all three types and all four usages: if (already assigned) then (a) else
(b). But that's really annoying for doing maths, where things are *much*
more comprehensible if you can quantify over letterals without worry.
Having to keep track of multiple DAs is just icky, as is assigning first
to a DA then with goi to a lerfu-word.


The rules are different for bound and unbound variables.

lojbab

--
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                    703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org