[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] semantic parser - tersmu-0.1rc1
And, of course, following English, we might have cases where one of the the occurrences is verso and the whole, covering all occurrences, is prenex universal. Again, starting from the FOPL form and looking for reasonable rules helps. I favor the "covers all the instances" approach -- even across bridi boundaries.
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 4, 2011, at 7:13 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>>
>> Is unnegated {ro'oi} ever useful?
>
> I think of it as "any number of":
>
> ro'oi prenu ka'e kelci
> "Any number of people can play."
>
>
>> All I can say is that the rule I have in mind
>> (and code) - always export to the closest prenex - seems coherent and
>> simple, and as far as I can tell is in full accordance with the
>> baseline.
>
> I'm pretty sure the intention was that implicit quantifiers on "da"
> were mere elisions, so "ge ko'a gi da da broda" would have to be
> either "(su'o da zo'u) ge ko'a gi da da broda" or "ge ko'a gi (su'o)
> da (su'o) da broda". It couldn't be something that needs an expansion
> before being made explicit.
>
>> If we're to let scope jump out of geks, why not also out of NOI-clauses
>> or NU-clauses?
>
> I don't think anything should be jumping out of anywhere, it's just a
> matter of where the elided quantifier is in the first place.
>
> There are two separate issues to consider: (1) Where is the binding
> quantifier when an expression contains apparently unbound variables?
> (2) What is the scope of an explicit quantifier which is not presented
> in prenex form?
>
> I don't think there's more than one reasonable answer to (2). Saying
> that "no da blabi .i je no de xekri" means something different from
> "ge no da zo'u da blabi gi no de zo'u de xekri" seems just
> unreasonable. No quote from CLL can make it reasonable. The fact that
> you need to use tu'e-tu'u if you want to move "no da" to a prenex
> while maintaining the non-prenex ijek connective form is just
> incidental.
>
> Question (1) may admit more than one reasonable answer. The simplest
> answer seems to be that the elided "su'o" is right in front of the
> first instance of the apparently unbound variable, with scope as in
> (2), and any instance outside that scope will require new binding.
> Another perhaps reasonable answer might be that the elided "su'o" has
> scope wide enough to capture as many instances of the apparently
> unbound variable as possible. I don't find it so reasonable that there
> be no possible place to make "su'o" explicit in the expression as
> presented.
>
> 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.
>
--
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.