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

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:50 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> At the least, there should be a process of
> converting FOL into Lojban that would justify the reverse reconstruction.

Converting FOL into Lojban is trivial.

But in addition to all the expressions obtained from converting FOL
into Lojban, Lojban has additional grammatical expressions (usually
more compact) not obtained directly by conversion from FOL but rather
from a set of arbitrary (but consistent) rules. These compact
expressions are declared to be equivalent to some other expression
obtained by direct conversion. This set of consistent but arbitrary
rules are what this thread is about. They cannot be justified by any
argument from logic because they do not arise out of anything to do
with logic. The compact expressions are there just for convenience,
not out of any logical necessity.


>>>intermediate constructions which are not to be taken too
>>> seriously (except that they usually are also sentences of Lojban) on the way
>> to the final results.
>>
>> Which intermediate construction is not to be taken too seriously? If
>> there was such intermediate construction, the whole thing falls apart.
>> The whole point of the rules is that there be no gaps in moving from
>> the non-standard form to the standard one.
>
> ?? "such intermediate construction" I suppose means "one that is not a Lojban
> sentence".

I meant "one that is not to be taken seriously".

>Well, is there a guarantee that the rules will never lead to one on
> the way to a correct interpretation?

Of course. They are, by construction, all equivalent in meaning.

> (1) ge su'o da zo'u ko'a da broda gi su'o da zo'u ko'e da broda
>
> (2) su'o da zo'u ge ko'a da broda gi ko'e da broda
>
>  The only justification we
> may add for the choice is which one makes the whole system nicer, and
> in my view that means choosing (2) simply because I think it's better
> to stick with left over right scope. What possible justification
> beyond that are you looking for?
>
> I assume you mean (1) here, since that is what your convention selects.

Yes, sorry.

>>> I am not sure I understand your objection to the traditional solution to
>> donkey
>>> sentences.  Do you know of cases where it just doesn't work?
>>
>> Changing a narrow scope existential into a wide scope universal? And
>> already mentioned cases where that doesn't work: "most farmers who own
>> a donkey, beat it"
>
> Sorry, why doesn't it work?  For all donkeys x, for most farmers y who own x, y
> beats x.

Because that has a different meaning. Suppose there is one donkey that
is not beaten by any of its owners. Your proposed expansion is
obviously false, but the English "most farmers who own a donkey, beat
it" could still be true, no?

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.