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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> How can the syntax be suggesting that linkargs but not selbri tags get
> tighter scope than tailterms?

Because linkargs aredefinitely internal to the selbri, while selbri
tags are for all intents and purposes external to the selbri (weird
guhek cases aside). Consider "na'e ke broda be na ku (ke'e)" for
example.

>> Yes, but I'm just parsing gi'e, na and selbri tags before tail terms
>> rather than leaving them for last. That's what the syntax suggests,
>> and I just don't see the advantage of doing otherwise.
>
> For giheks and ijeks, an argument might be that they are afterthought
> connectives, so should be usable in situations where you had not
> considered when starting the sentence that you were going to want to add
> the connective. If you introduce a quantifier (or sumti connective)
> during the first connectant, you may want it to scope over the second
> connectant - and since you hadn't planned on expressing the second
> connectant at all, you won't have had the foresight to put the
> quantifier in a prenex.

But by the same token you may not have had the foresight that you
would want a qantifier or sumti connective that does not scope over
the gihek. Either way you'd have to start over, so we need to compare
which situation is more normal/frequent, and which structure is more
natural.

> As for having {na broda da} work differently from {na ku broda da}...
> one argument would simply be that it allows you to efficiently get at
> meanings which would otherwise be complicated to express.

You can use "na'e (ke)" instead of "na" to get your meaning easily,
but I suppose you could make your argument with tags rather than with
"na".

> e.g. suppose
> we want to add negations to modify
> {broda da gi'e brode vau de}
> to have the first conjunct be
> EX x1. EX x2. !broda( ,x1,x2) .

Are you using your gi'e-rule, or mine? With your gi'e-rule, my na-rule
makes little sense. We both agree that na is subordinate to gi'e, so
if gi'e has tight scope, na must too.

> With your {na} rule, it seems you would have to make it
> {broda da gi'e nai brode vau de na ku} .
> With mine, it's just
> {na broda da gi'e brode vau de} .

It's clear that one rule will allow some things being shorter, and
another rule will allow other things being shorter. I don't think a
single example with no semantic content will be convincing either way.

> Another argument would involve your agreeing with me that
>
> broda je brode da
> Prop: EX x1. (broda( ,x1) /\ brode( ,x1))
>
> is correct... do you?

I agree it's EX x1 brodi(x1), and what you offer for brodi is probably
the obvious choice. But tanru are weird, so I won't commit to it. In
any case, I suppose you don't need the exact form of "brodi" for your
argument, but I don't consider na and tag to be part of the tanru, so
selbri attached "na" is different from tanru-making "je".

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.