* Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 15:27 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > (would you agree that "guhek selbri-3 gik selbri-6" is a more sensible
> > grammar of guheks than the official one, by the way? I spent some time
> > trying to make sense of the official "guhek selbri gik selbri-6", but
> > failed - mostly because of the weird interactions with {co})
>
> I think connectives should allow the same things for both connectands,
> so I'm unhappy with both "guhek selbri gik selbri-6" and
> "gek sumti gik sumti-4".
>
> I haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion on what level
> they should connect, other than that it should be the same on both
> sides.
Is there any reasoning at all for the current asymmetry?
I see no issue at all as far as the semantics goes with allowing "guhek
selbri-3 gik selbri-3" and "gek sumti gik sumti". In terms of my code,
it would involve changing two characters...
> > I actually was, until I changed it a few days ago, handling selbri3
> > after tailterms. What made me change was {broda be da brode ro da} - it
> > seems counterintuitive to have the first {da} in the scope of the
> > second, which is what I seemed to be forced to do when handling
> > tailterms first.
> >
> > Do you see another way to avoid that? Or do you consider it correct?
>
> I still don't know how you handle tanru,
The basic relations in the first-order logic I'm reducing to are
structured:
data JboRel = Tanru JboPred JboRel
| AbsPred Abstractor JboPred
| AbsProp Abstractor Prop
| Moi Quantifier MOICmavo
| Among
| Brivla String
The first line means that one possible kind of relation is a tanru, the
data for which consists of a unary predicate (the seltau) and another
relation (the tertau).
In the case of {broda be da brode} where {da} is not already bound, the
seltau is the unary predicate "EX x1. broda(_,x1)" (higher places having
implicit {zo'e}s, and the scope of this quantifier not escaping the
seltau), and the tertau is (the relation which is the interpretation of)
brode.
In other words, I'm interpreting a seltau as giving an implicit
subsentence (complete with a prenex to export to), with linkargs
becoming tailterms and an analogue of {ke'a} in the x1.
Does that seem right?
The actual semantics of the resulting Tanru is something I "leave to the
pragmatics module", i.e. don't even try to handle for now. But my
assumption is that all the data required to interpret the tanru is
that I'm giving, i.e. the seltau as a unary predicate and the tertau as
a relation.
> but it seems to me that "broda be da brode" should be handled like
> "brodi be da", where the exact derivation of "brodi" from "broda" and
> "brode" is probably undefinable.
>
> As for "brodi be da ro da", I suppose the first "da" has to be bound
> by "ro", but I'm willing to reconsider.
Hmm. Well, now you've brought up the NAhE issue and so blocked my
previous solution of handling tailterms last, I don't see an
alternative.
> > But I'm afraid I do intend to let conservatism take priority in
> > this case, at least for now.
>
> Is there any indication that CLL gives giheks tighter scope than
> tail-terms? (I don't remember either way.)
Not explicitly, that I could find. But it's clear on ijeks, and it seems
natural to have them be parallel to giheks.
> >> You can use "na'e (ke)" instead of "na" to get your meaning easily,
> >
> > You have {na'e} giving logical negation?
>
> What's the alternative?
The CLL's "scalar contrary" - which I understand as having {na'e broda}
meaning {gu'e nai broda gi co'e}.
The {co'e} sometimes is important - e.g. CLL 15.4.6:
4.6) mi cadzu na'e klama le zarci
I walkingly-(other-than-go-to) the market.
> >> 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.
> >
> > Hold on. I understand your gi'e rule as giving e.g.
> > na broda gi'e na brode da
> > -> ge na broda da gi na brode da ,
>
> Did you leave out a "vau"?
Oops, yes.
> I have:
>
> na broda gi'e na brode su'o da
> -> ge na ku zo'u broda gi na ku zo'u su'o da zo'u brode da
>
> na broda gi'e na brode vau su'o da
> -> ge na ku zo'u su'o da zo'u na broda da gi na ku zo'u su'o da zo'u brode da
^
Did you insert a {na} ----------' ?
> > so there's still the issue of whether those {na}s scope over the {da}s.
>
> If you have "su'o da" with scope over "gi'e", there is no doubt that
> it will also have scope over "na".
Actually... no, that isn't how I'm doing it. I have the extra tail terms
after the vau distributing over the gi'e conjuncts, appending the tail
terms to each, and the result then being interpreted:
na broda gi'e na brode vau da
-> na broda da gi'e na brode da
-> EX x. [ na broda x gi'e na brode x ]
-> EX x. (!broda(x) /\ !brode(x))
> >> > 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".
> >
> > Hmm. Why do you call this a tanru? The relevant grammar for
> > selbri connection is selbri-4 through selbri-6. It's true that the usual
> > use (and the only documented use, to my knowledge) of selbri connection
> > is in a seltau, but I don't see why we should consider the connectives
> > themselves as anything more complicated than boolean operators.
>
> You're probably right. We just don't have a clear rule on what the
> place structure of "broda je brode" is wrt the place structures of
> broda and brode.
Quite. I have it being symmetrical, but I agree this is pretty
arbitrary.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpb3SMl0Gx9M.pgp
Description: PGP signature