Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

* Sunday, 2014-10-05 at 22:33 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

> 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!

In addition to the unary functions (LAhE, NAhE BO), there's also the binary functions (JOI) which can be expanded as "lo broda be ... bei ..." for some suitable "broda". These also should in principle be opaque to quantifiers and connectives, although the resulting forms are mostly useless.

> 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.

So "li cy" is a free variable?  And bindable like "da": "ro li cy poi broda zo'u li cy brode". So "ro li cy" is not "ro da poi me li cy"?

"cy du li mo'e cy" should be true, however, because now "cy" is a sumti and not an operand. "li" and "mo'e" seem to be perfect inverses and cancel each other out. 

 

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?

I haven't really given it much thought, but I suppose I was thinking more as something like "lo se zei me be" than "lo du be". But yes, it makes sense that it would be something that is both one and two, which would only work in the case of "li pa .e ci" to refer to the cardinality of the Holy Trinity. (The way that was explained to me, it would not be an error but a divine mystery.)  

> > 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?

I don't think I have any firm theory yet on the expansion of "ca ja ba". It could be as you say, or it could be that "ca ja ba" is "fi'o se cabna ja se balvi", in which case it would be:

ca ja ba ro da broda

= ro da se cabna ja se balvi lo nu broda

We do however sometimes say things like "pa roi ro mentu" for "once every minute", so at least in that case we seem to take the quantifier to have scope over the tag. I explain that by saying that "PA roi" is "fi'o te rapli be li PA" and thus PA is really a cardinality and not a quantifier.

 

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?

More or less, yes. The problem is that I don't have a good theory of UD, so "if Apple is in the UD" is extremely relative in practice, since it can very easily enter or leave the UD as required. For the analysis of logical forms we don't really need to concern ourselves with those things.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.