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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> {le} to me seems pretty clear: {le broda} refers, wherever it appears,
> to some individuals which I have in mind or would have in mind
> if I thought about it (to steal pycyn's phrase), and which I hope you
> will be able to glork from a mixture of context and them being described
> as brodaing.

Sounds reasonable, although you might object to some individuals I
could have in mind and which you would claim to be non-mundane and
thus not acceptable candidates for in-mindness.

> Whether I actually believe them to broda is beside the point; presumably
> I do expect that you believe them to broda, or that you expect me to
> expect you to believe them to broda, or etc.
>
> Since there's a single intended referent-bunch, {le broda} is invariant
> under passing it through a negation.
>
> Obviously it isn't wholly immune to scope, because of the {ro da le
> broda be da} issue.
>
> I don't see why it should be even when the description doesn't
> explicitly mention bound variables; e.g. why {ro verba cu prami le
> mamta} shouldn't be a reasonable abbreviation of {ro verba cu prami le
> mamta be ri}, or why in {pu je ba ku mi'o jinga fi le bradi} we
> should have {le bradi} getting the same referents both times.
>
> xorlo seems to declare that it is constant in this way - unless I'm
> misunderstanding again? (Just being hopeful...)

I could say:

 lo bradi noi ke'a du ma kau cu ro roi se jinga mi'o
 Enemies, whovever they be, are always defeated by us.

I don't know if that falls within "have in mind or would have in mind
if I thought about it" for you.

> Anyway, {lo broda} just adds to {le broda} the side-claim that the
> referents *actually* broda, rather than merely that I expect you to
> think that they do (or otherwise understand me when I describe them as
> brodaing). OK!

Yes. If I say:

"(ju'a/pe'i/.a'o/.ei/xu/...) lo broda cu brode"

the "side claim" or presupposition, is unaffected by the
ju'a/pe'i/.a'o/.ei/xu/... This attitudinal is only concernned with the
main proposition. The side claim is presupposed, not asserted,
questioned, etc. (It could be asserted, questioned, etc, but
independently of the main proposition.)

>> Assuming
>>
>> (1) le broda = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda
>
> I wouldn't want to take that too literally... using {le broda} doesn't
> merely claim that I'm describing the referents to you as brodaing, it
> actually *does* describe them as brodaing.

Right, but then the incidental clause is not a claim either, at least
not at the same level as the main clause. It may be that "noi" is not
far removed enough to work as an exact definition though.

>> (4) le broda ku voi brode = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda .e lo ka brode
>>
>> I'm not so sure about the move to:
>>
>> (5) le broda ku voi brode = zo'e noi mi ke'a do skicu lo ka broda gi'e brode
>>
>> The move from (4) to (5) is the one I find most suspect. It has to do
>> with the semantics of "skicu", and of course also definitions (1) and
>> (2) in terms of "skicu" may or may not be right.
>
> Yes, I agree that (4)->(5) is dodgy. But I don't see any corresponding
> dodginess in {le broda ku voi brode} -> {le broda je brode}.

It seems to depend a lot on understanding "le" and "voi", which we
don't seem to be able to pin down other than through hand waving.

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.