From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jan 29 11:08:15 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_1); 29 Jan 2003 19:08:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 52616 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2003 19:08:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Jan 2003 19:08:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2003 19:08:12 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18dxZE-0003RF-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:08:12 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18dxZ8-0003Qv-00; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:08:06 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from vinland.freeshell.org ([207.202.214.139] helo=sdf.lonestar.org ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18dxZ2-0003Qg-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:08:00 -0800 Received: (from mbays@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) id h0TJ7ov21430; Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:07:50 GMT Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 19:07:50 +0000 (UTC) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e In-Reply-To: <20030129175923.GC28812@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 3945 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mbays@freeshell.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Martin Bays From: Martin Bays Reply-To: mbays@freeshell.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:59:23 -0800 > From: Robin Lee Powell > Reply-To: lojban-list@lojban.org > To: lojban-list@lojban.org > Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 10:08:40AM +0000, Martin Bays wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > > > Also, and relatedly, is {ro boi .ibu poi kacna'u zo'u .ibu broda} > > > > quantifying over .ibu, or is the prenex just giving a subject > > > > restricting whatever .ibu already refers to to natural numbers? > > > > > > It is quantifying over .ibu. See chapter 16, verse 4. > > > > > > > Yes, but the examples there (as far as I can see) all apply to DA. And > > the scope of a DA cmavo, as the CLL says I forget where, is very short > > - and in particular an {.i} (as opposed to an ijek/ijoik) cancels all > > DA assignments - and since you can only have a prenex at the start of > > a statement, not after an ijek/ijoik, your prenexed DA will never have > > a previous assignment (except what about sub-bridi, say in a du'u? Can > > DA assignments descend?). > > Heh. > > Many of us (and I think that includes everyone I've spoken to > conversationally on IRC) ignore that as patently stupid, and use da'o > and NIhO to clear da assignments. > > Oh, wow. > > And it turns out that either everyone who has discussed this is wrong, > or there is direct contradiction in the CLL! > > >From Chapter 16, just after E10.5: > > By the rules of predicate logic, the ``ro'' quantifier on ``da'' has > scope over both sentences. That is, once you've picked a value for > ``da'' for the first sentence, it stays the same for both sentences. > (The ``da'' continues with the same fixed value until a new paragraph or > a new prenex resets the meaning.) > > Note that the above refers to an example which uses an .ije, but it > *says* that any sentence carries a da. > > In S16.14: > > > In general, the scope of a prenex that precedes a sentence extends to > following sentences that are joined by ijeks (explained in Chapter 14) > such as the ``.ije'' in Example 14.1. Theoretically, a bare ``.i'' > terminates the scope of the prenex. Informally, however, variables may > persist for a while even after an ``.i'', as if it were an ``.ije''. > Prenexes that precede embedded bridi such as relative clauses and > abstractions extend only to the end of the clause, as explained in > Section 8. A prenex preceding ``tu'e ... tu'u'' long-scope brackets > persists until the ``tu'u'', which may be many sentences or even > paragraphs later. > > > It would seem we have a contradiction, yes? > Looks that way. Personally, I'd prefer the second. I'd also prefer, if it's so far undecided, that DA in sub-bridi are assumed to be new - so {da jinvi le du'u da cevni} is not the same as {da goi ko'a jinvi le du'u ko'a cevni}. > > But (anyway), if you use .ibu in a prenex, or indeed ko'a, it might > > well have a previous assignment still in scope. So how can you be sure > > your prenex is re-assigning? > > da'o > > > Actually, would bi'u work? > > It certainly would for me. > > > lo ninmu goi ny. cadzu .i ro boi ny. bi'u poi kacna'u zo'u ny > > kacna'u ja ninmu > > Well, it's only a sentence away, so I might get a bit confused, but I > think I could deal with it. > > More interestingly, da'o appears to bind to the previous word, > gramatically, so theoretically you could do > > lo ninmu goi ny. cadzu .i ro boi ny. da'o poi kacna'u zo'u ny > kacna'u ja ninmu > > (I'm assuming you meant ja; ji certainly won't work). Eeek! Actually, I meant gi'i. Or plausibly je'i. > > The intent would be to clear just the assignment of da'o, which would be > a new usage AFAIK. If we allowed that (I'm assuming you meant it clears whatever da'o is attached to), I would certainly prefer it to bi'u. > > Note, however, that in both cases the poi does *not* appear to be > binding to just the ny. It *isn't*? Why not? And what is it binding to, then? >Not sure that's a problem in this case, though. > What's the boi there for anyways? > {ro ny.} counts as a number, for some reason. EBNF: "number = PA [PA ! lerfu-word]...". No idea what use this was included for, though.