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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> Actually, there's an issue here, and I'm not sure how to resolve it.

This is why I avoid relying on implicit quantifiers.

> I think we agreed that
> (i) if {lo broda be da} occurs not in the scope of a quantification of
>    {da}, the resulting existential quantifier has scope only within the
>    lo-phrase - i.e., referents are claimed to satisfy
>    EX x. broda(_,x) .

That's how I would deal with "lo broda be su'o da".

> Meanwhile,
> (ii) if {da} is already quantified, then {lo broda be da} is interpreted
>    as a skolem function.

If da is bound by a quantifier and "lo broda be da" occurs within the
scope of the quantifier, yes.

> But then how to handle
> {ge broda da gi brode vau lo brodi be da} ?

The two options seem to be:

(1) ge broda su'o da gi brode vau lo brodi be su'o de

(2) su'o da zo'u ge broda da gi brode vau lo brodi be da

I would personally choose (1), but I'm sure someone will want to argue for (2).

> The same problem occurs with {da .e ko'a lo broda be da}, if my
> understanding of the interaction between sumti connectives and
> quantifiers is correct.

Right, again it's one of:

(1) su'o da .e ko'a lo broda be su'o de (cu brode)

(2) su'o da zo'u da .e ko'a lo broda be da (cu brode)

But I don't think you need to bring "lo" into this. We already have
the same issue with "ge da gi ko'a da broda", which could be either
of:

(1) ge su'o da su'o de zo'u da de broda gi su'o de zo'u ko'a de broda

(2) su'o da zo'u ge da da broda gi ko'a da broda

> I'm not seeing any solutions other than either (a) choosing one of (i)
> and (ii), and declaring the other disallowed; (b) just accepting this as
> an ugly exception to the wide "scope" of description sumti.
>
> I don't like either of these.
>
> Any better ideas?

Define better where the quantifier that binds a variable implicitly
goes. Is "da" just equivalent to "su'o da" in the same position where
it first occurs (in which case the scope of "su'o" is determined by
this position only) or is "da" bound by a quantifier with scope wide
enough to encompass all following occurrences of "da" (in which case
it may not be equivalent to "su'o da" in the same position)? The two
criteria give the same results for very simple cases, but different
results for slightly more complicated ones. I don't think anyone ever
bothered to define a proper rule for this.

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.