Subject: Re: [lojban] Logic course

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:53:11 EST

In a message dated 3/19/2002 2:37:26 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> > Apparently only {da, de, di} . {xy} and so on are anaphoric pronouns and
> > will pick up other things. BUT in a clearly MEX environment, they
> function
> > as variables, for reading formulae. Question: How tell that this is a
> > clearly MEX environment. I think it is, since there is a formula to 
> read:
> <
> > 1)AxEy(x + y = 0)>
> 
> ???
> 

I couldn't agree more. MEX is a mess, more so the moe we have occasion to 
try to use it. Some day I will figure out what is meant by words like 
"operand" and so on. many of which have clear meanings that clearly do not 
fit the present cases (an old loglang problem -- autodidacts!)

<{roda goi xy. de goi zy. zo'u li xy su'i zy du li no}
{roda de zo'u li no sumji da de}

these parse>
I should hope so! Are the {li}s necessary?

<{du} is a two-place argument,

RefGramm 18;7>

Yeah. I still don't like it, but I see its usefulness.

<7.2) py. du xy.boi zy.
``p'' is-identical-to ``x'' ``z''
p = x = z

I don't get why this is not li py du li xy du li zy>

Well that would be ungrammatical, for all it is like math. The {du} after 
{xy} doesn't fit anywhere: {li xy} is the second argument of the first {du} 
and there is not end of sentence (or beginning of new sentence) mark after 
it. Since {du} has indefinitely many arguments, the whole string can be done 
at once -- more efficient than the math notation, though slightly less clear, 
perhaps

<> 5){roda zo'u de zo'u li da du li de te'a re .inaja di zo'u li da du li di
> pi'i vo}>
>
> An argument for forethought connectives, though I think this works out
right.
> And you could skip the internal preneces.

how? (this is a question, not a challenge ;-)>

{roda zo'u da du de te'a re .inaja da du di
pi'i vo}, which doesn't work for other reasons, but has the quantified 
variables with scope over the chunks all right {da du de} works as well as 
{de zo'u da du de} for the same purpose.
.
<> But, perversely, {vo} needs a
> {li}.

only because the da should have taken one...>

No, because here it stands for a number rather than enumerating something as 
a quantifier, as it would be taken to be without the {li}.

<>. is there a better way to check comething parses than to write it into a
file, open a ms dos prompt, cd jbofihe and jbofihe test.txt?>

Well, I can never get jbofihe to work so I use the official parser, which I 
keep open in background, then just copy text, switch over to parser, and 
paste text (have to use the button, not ^V).

xorxes:
<>< I think it's
>{[li] xy du li me'o da pi'i me'o da}.>
>
>This is still not screwed up enough, i.e., the parser rejects both 
>versions.

Typo: me'o -> mo'e (another reason why MEX sucks.)>

This puts the whole thing in the wrong category (in any vaguely usual sense 
of "operand", whereas the {me'o} at least was said to give a sumti where one 
was required. But, it does give the right parse.

<>Both rejected, apparently {ro xy} is not recognized (though it should be as 

>a
>case of "all the X's" even if not as a quantifier).

{ro xy} should be a number, {roboi xy} should be "all x".>

{ro xy} is refused altogether; {roboi xy} is accepted as something, Lord 
knows what.
But {ro ko'a} is OK, as is {ro ri}. Apparently letterals are not pronouns in 
the same sense that {ko'a} and {ri} and {vo'a} are.