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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> * Saturday, 2011-12-03 at 15:51 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
>>
>> What about things like: "ro da poi verba cu prami lo mamta be da"?
>
> Ah, you mean because {ro mamta be da} would get everything which is
> motherly towards {da}, when we might want to specifically mean the
> biological mother but not want to waste a couple of syllables by making
> it {ro rorci mamta be da}?

I could just as well have said "ro da poi verba cu pencu lo nazbi be
da". It didn't occur to me you would think the version with "ro"   was
more clear.

> I suppose that is an example. Although the complication in semantics
> involved seems rather large compared to this two-syllable saving...
> generally, those situations in which it's reasonable to leave the nature
> of a function to pragmatics seem to coincide with those in which it's
> easy to actually express it. But maybe it seems that way only because
> the examples I'm considering are too simple.

How about a non-distributive case:

ro da poi verba cu pilno lo re xance be da lo nu kavbu lo bolci


>> >>  "ge da gi ko'a da broda"
>> >>
>> >> (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
>
>> > (1) seems reasonable. It looks like it could be implemented (in all
>> > cases) by having the binding of a {da} in a connectand to the bound
>> > variable it creates survive only within the connectand. I think I might
>> > like it.
>>
>> That's what makes sense to me, but of course it goes against CLL.
>
> Really? Explicitly?

Who knows? This is the closest I can find:

http://dag.github.com/cll/16/10/

<<
10.3)  mi .enai do prami roda
       I, and not you, love everything.
expands to:
10.4)  mi prami roda .ijenai do prami roda
       I love everything, and-not, you love everything.
and then into prenex form as:
10.5)  roda zo'u mi prami da .ije naku zo'u do prami da
       For each thing: I love it, and it is false that you love (the same) it.
>>

10.5 is actually ungrammatical. Presumably the second "zo'u" is a
typo, although this section is about moving a negation to the prenex,
so...

Can you extract a rule from that for how connectives are supposed to
interact with quantifiers? I don't think I can.

(2)
>> How else can you process CLL's implicit quantifiers having scope over
>> several bridi?
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. As I read CLL, the first {da}
> in a statement/subsentence is "exported" to the prenex,

But before or after dealing with "ge"? There isn't a single "the
prenex" to consider:

  (prenex1) ge (prenex2) da da broda gi (prenex3) ko'a da broda

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.