Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> On second thoughts, I think I agree with your interpretation of the
> english. It should be read as making two claims: firstly that precisely
> two of the boys carried their bags on their heads, and secondly that
> those two bags contained the corresponding lunches.
>
> But I think this reading is only permitted because the quantifier
> effectively picks out a particular group; had it been "two or more of
> the boys carried his bag, which contained his lunch, on his head", we
> wouldn't know for which boys the incidental claim is being made.

If ke'a can pick "the two that ..." it can just as well pick "the two
or more that ..."

The problem cases are no, ro, me'i and any other quantifier compatible
with no, because there may be nothing for the relative clause to be
about. In those cases, the only reasonable choice seems to be the
whole domain of the quantifier, and if that's the case for those, that
may have to be the case for all other quantifiers too.


>> > The obvious alternative would be to have {na broda} work like {broda be
>> > na ku},
>>
>> Isn't that what you are doing though?
>
> No; I currently have bare {na} (and presumably other selbri tags, once
> they're implemented) getting tight scope, within all tail terms, while
> the scope of tag-terms like {na ku} respects the order of terms.

But what do you do when "broda be naku" is a seltau? I think it's
"broda be na ku" that must force tight scope. For bare "na" (and any
other tag) I just follow the general rule of left having scope over
right. Anything within either bridi tail must be within the scope of
"gi'e".

> Relatedly, what do you make (assuming you're not allowed to change the
> official grammar, so there's only one prenex involved) of
> {na ku broda .i je na ku brode}?

ge na ku zo'u broda gi na ku zo'u brode

>> > su'o da broda be na ku gi'e brode be na ku vau de
>> > Prop: EX x1. !EX x2. !(broda(x1,x2) /\ brode(x1,x2))
>> > jbo: su'o da zo'u na ku su'o de zo'u na ku ge da broda de gi da brode de
>>
>> I get either:
>
> (was there meant to be a second disjunct for that "either"?)

Yes, I wasn't sure about "broda be na ku" but then I decided that
since it can be a seltau the negation cannot extend beyond the selbri.
And I forgot to edit.

> Hmm. Do I correctly deduce from all this that your rule is to
> syntactically transform giheks to geks, then interpret those?

Yes, but only after all leading terms have been prenexed.

> That creates new prenices, which is something I've avoided doing.

So your rule is that when a prenex would be allowed by the grammar,
then it is somehow there, even if it's invisible?

In that case, if you do end up transforming "gi'e" into "ge", you have
created a new prenex, whether you want to use it or not.

> I think of giheks as parallel to ijeks.

I think of all logical connectives as variants of geks

> If we want geks, we can always use geks!

You do end up with nothing but geks anyway.

>>   ko'a .e ko'e broda su'o da
>>
>> In all cases "su'o da" is under the scope of a preceding operator.
>
> I certainly agree on the last three. But that's because I have
> quantified/connected terms, and tag-terms, exporting to the closest
> prenex, in order.

How does that work for ".e"? It seems that if you do what I do, you
end up exporting "su'o da" to newly created preneces.

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.