[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 26, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 09:32 -0800 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>
>> I can't (with a straight face) claim to have followed this discussion, but I
>> offer this tidbit about relative clauses. A restrictive relative clause
>> attaches to a description *and are part of that description*. That is, for
>> Lojban, {lo broda (ku?) poi brode} is just {lo broda Ce brode} ( I can never
>> keep all the various versions of the logical connectives straight, nor be sure
>> what is meant to be connected here, predicates or bridi tails or something else
>> altogether). Consequently, it is unaffected by various operators within whose
>> scope it lies, just like the predicate inside the official description.
>
> But sometimes the predicate inside the description is affected by, or
> rather is constrained by, scope - e.g. {ro da lo broda be da cu brode}.
>
Right. I guess I was just thinking of negation and the
Ike, not the binding operators.
>> This latter is true also of non-restrictive relative clauses, but they
>> are simply separate sentences: {lo proda noi brode cu brodi} is {lo
>> broda cu brodi .ije lo broda cu brode}.
>
> But what about {ro da noi brode cu brodi}? And {na ku ro da noi brode cu
> brodi}?
>
Well, I don't understand this really, but it doesn't seem to change the rule,I.e. = { ro da brodi .I roda brode}. {poi} just makes a restricted quantifier, "all brode".
>> I am not sure about {voi}, but whichever, it is independent of the
>> operators within whose scope it lies.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Sat, November 26, 2011 9:41:14 AM
>> Subject: Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
>>
>> * Saturday, 2011-11-26 at 11:02 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> {noi broda} is veridicial - it affects the truth conditions of the
>>>> claim, so it can't be scope-invariant.
>>>>
>>>> {voi broda} is non-veridicial - it doesn't affect the truth conditions,
>>>> so is scope-invariant. It just gives hints to help the listener
>>>> understand the intended referents of the sumti it's attached to, by
>>>> noting that they satisfy broda (or appear to satisfy broda, this being
>>>> all that's relevant).
>>>
>>> The veridicality of "noi" means that the subordinate clause is a
>>> veridical claim about its subject, it has nothing to do with how it
>>> affects (or rather doesn't affect) the truth of the main clause. The
>>> non-restrictiveness of "noi" is what makes it independent of the main
>>> clause.
>>
>> Hmm. I wonder if I now finally understand part of xorlo: would you say
>> that {lo broda} is equivalent, under this side-clause interpretation of
>> {noi} you've just set out, to {le broda noi broda}?
>>
>> I never understood how it could be veridical, and spelt {lo} rather than
>> {le}, and yet be invariant under negation scope. This would explain it.
>>
>>> I can't comment on "voi" since we don't really know whether it's
>>> supposed to be restrictive or non-restrictive. It could very well be
>>> both non-veridical and restrictive: "the woman that I described as a
>>> man" vs "the woman, who I described as a man". I'm not sure which one
>>> of those "lo ninmu voi nanmu" is supposed to be.
>>
>> I don't know about {lo}, but presumably {le broda ku voi brode} is
>> equivalent to {le broda je brode}.
>>
>> To me that suggests that {ko'a voi broda} be not exactly restrictive,
>> but rather something like "disambiguatingly incidental". It describes
>> ko'a as satisfying broda, with the intention that this makes clearer the
>> intended referents of {ko'a}. So {ro da voi nanmu cu broda} is highly
>> unhelpful, as it describes everything as being a man, but isn't actually
>> false unless something doesn't broda.
>>
>> This looks like a useful role for it, whether or not it was the
>> originally intended one, no?
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
--
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.