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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> 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 assume it had to do with how they wanted forethought to group with
respect to afterthought.

> 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.

Since you don't say anything about the resulting semantics, why do you
need the seltau being a unary predicate rather than a relation? My
first impression would be that sometimes the pragmatics module might
need to use the full relation implicit in the seltau rather than just
the forced unary predicate.

>> > 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.

To me it's more natural to group giheks with eks than with ijeks.

There's nothing fancy going on with ijeks, you have two propositions,
one on each side, and the connective returns one resulting
proposition.

eks and giheks basically take two propositions and return one too, but
they first need to do some fancy stuff to extract the two
propositions, since they involve shared elements and non-shared
elements.

>> > 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}.

So tight-scope "na" is just a special case of "na'e", with "co'e"
being the tautology.


>> 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))

Yuck. So you distribute the *text* "da", and only then consider the
implicit quantifier?
Does that mean you get a different result for:

na broda gi'e na brode vau su'o da

???

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.