* Sunday, 2014-10-05 at 22:33 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
>
> Does "broda tu'a ko'a .e ko'e" become "ge broda tu'a ko'a gi broda tu'a
> ko'e" rather than "broda lo du'u ko'a .e ko'e co'e"?
Yes, I get the former.
> Within a decription? I would say "lo broda be ko'a .e ko'e" is "zo'e noi
> broda ko'a .e ko'e", and not "ge lo broda be ko'a gi lo broda be ko'e".
Good. Same here.
> Similarly for LAhE, which I take to be "lo broda be" for some suitable
> "broda".
Hmm, interesting. Yes, that does seem more useful.
Added to TODO!
> With li-expressions I'm less sure, since I don't have a clear grasp of the
> interface between mekso and the ordinary part of the language. Is "cy du li
> cy" always true, for example?
I don't think so. {cy} on its own is a sumbasti, probably referring some
lo cipni or similar. I think the mekso variable cy has to be entirely
separate to be of any use.
> > If I understand you correctly, you want special rules for what happens
> > when we parse a sumti with such logical information during the parsing
> > of a value: so rather than passing the actions of quantification and
> > connection up to the logic, they should be caught at the level of the
> > value and evaluated there. Right?
>
> Rather, the logic of connections/quantification, which always applies to
> propositions, intervenes in the description of the value and doesn't escape
> the description.
Hmm... so do you mean that you interpret {li pa} as corresponding to the
description "equals 1", and {li pa .e re} as corresponding to
"equals 1 and equals 2" (and hence an error)?
But you had {.e} yielding {jo'u}, so I guess that isn't right. Could you
explain in more detail?
> > Something analogous happens with sumtcita. Do you consider
> > broda ca ro da
> > to mean something other than
> > ro da zo'u broda ca da
> > (which is how tersmu currently handles it)?
>
> No, but that's because "ca" has scope over broda:
>
> broda ca ro da
> = ro da cabna lo nu broda
> = ro da zo'u da cabna lo nu broda
> = ro da zo'u broda ca da
Good. Sounds though like we might disagree on e.g.
ca ja ba ro da broda
on which I get
ga ro da ca da zo'u broda gi ro da ba da zo'u broda .
Would you get the quantifier having scope over the connective?
> > > The presupposition is that when you use "lo plise" there's
> > > something you are talking about, and that something is identified
> > > by their satisfying the predicate "plise". Kinds may be one
> > > candidate interpretation, especially with so little context.
> > What is the logical content of this presupposition? Not actually
> > a matter of uniqueness, presumably? Some sort of maximality?
>
> I think so, yes. I don't want to insist too much on that because its
> maximality within the universe of discourse, not some absolute maximality
> as suggested by the examples in CLL.
Sure.
So you mean that {lo plise} has to refer to Apple *if* Apple is in the
UD, but for contextual reasons it sometimes might not be? But when it
isn't, there does nonetheless have to be a unique maximal referent, or
else {lo plise} fails to refer?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature