[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> Probably not bugs:
> This might at first seem wrong:
> > na ku mi noi brode cu broda
> Prop:!(brode(mi) /\ broda(mi))
It does seem wrong to me. A noi-clause is more like a presupposition,
not directly part of the claim.
I'd say it's more like:
presupp Prop: brode(mi)
main Prop: !broda(mi)
> but consider that e.g.
> > na ku da ro broda be da ku noi brodi cu brodu
> Prop:!EX x1. FA x2:(broda(_,x1)). (brodu(x1,x2) /\ brodi(x2))
> is probably right.
I don't think a noi-clause is well-defined when it is attached to
something that doesn't have referents. You need a referent in order to
be able to make a comment about it. It may be that noi forces
something like:
?presupp Prop: FA x1. FA x2:(broda(_,x1). brodi(x2)
main Prop: !EX x1. FA x2:(broda(_,x1)). brodu(x1,x2)
I'm not completely sure if that's exactly what the presupposition
should be, but I do believe the main proposition should not be
affected if you remove any noi-clause from it.
> Also,
> > ro da na ku broda .i je de brode
> Prop:FA x1. !EX x2. (broda(x1) /\ brode(x2))
> is right, because
> > ro da na ku broda de .i je de brode
> Prop:FA x1. !EX x2. (broda(x1,x2) /\ brode(x2))
> has to be; c.f.
> > ro da na broda de .i je de brode
> Prop:FA x1. EX x2. (!broda(x1,x2) /\ brode(x2)) .
This is a hairy issue. My instinct has always been that ".ije" should
be able to connect prenexed sentences, but the official grammar does
say otherwise.
BTW, how do you analyse "su'o da na broda" and "su'o da na broda gi'e na brode"?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.