Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e

From: Martin Bays <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:00:22 +0000 (UTC)

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:07:50PM +0000, Martin Bays wrote:
> > > 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}.
>
> *WHY*? That seems like a *huge* pain; if you want a new variable, use a
> new variable! There's an infinite number, after all.

Actually, I've changed my mind on the sub-bridi thing. It makes sense to
me for du'u, but not for nu or ka or so on, so forget it.

But if you mean generally, I don't see how you can just let DA assignments
persist indefinitely. Sure you can use new variables, but for how long can
you keep track of which subscripts are still available? Having to use da'o
to wipe everything seems like overkill, and using it for each one would be
a huge pain.

Sure, for casual usage I guess can you could let context decide whether
your DA is new or not (though I don't like it), but surely we should have
some proper rules? For that, my vote goes to the second CLL passage you
quoted.

Anyway, sorry, this is all aside from the point. I'll try to ask my real
question clearly, and then I'll stop bugging you all with my annoying
newbie questions and pretensions to having a clue what the hell I'm
talking about.

What I want to know is: for each of the three types of sumbasti - DA,
lerfu-word and KOhA - under what circumstances are they interpreted as
(a) referring to a previous assignment
or (b) being assigned anew (according to quantification and
restrictive relative clauses)
or (c) being ungrammatical/incomprehensible
or (d) something else

for each of the following uses
(i) [sumbasti] ninmu
(ii) [sumbasti] poi remna cu ninmu
(iii) [sumbasti] zo'u [sumbasti] ninmu
(iv) [sumbasti] poi remna zo'u [sumbasti] ninmu

And also - I'm assuming that plain [sumbasti] is equivalent to su'o pa
[sumbasti]. If not, what difference does putting a quantifier before the
[sumbasti] make?
- Does using {[sumbasti] bi'u} change anything? How about
{sumbasti da'o}?
- In the case of lerfu-words, does previous assignment with goi
have a different effect from previous assignment just by use of a
word/phrase with the right initial letters?

I know that's significant questionage. Sorry! But I really won't feel
comfortable until I at least know where I'm contravening rules, where
usage, and where nothing.

Personally, I think the position which makes most sense is to say that for
all three types and all four usages: if (already assigned) then (a) else
(b). But that's really annoying for doing maths, where things are *much*
more comprehensible if you can quantify over letterals without worry.
Having to keep track of multiple DAs is just icky, as is assigning first
to a DA then with goi to a lerfu-word.

All ideas much appreciated!

> > > 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?
>
> ro boi ny. (as opposed to just ny.). Probably doesn't batter.
>

OK... but only in the sense that {ro da poi...} has the poi binding to ro
da rather than just da, right?

> > >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.
>
> Umm, makes sense to me. Why is that a problem?

It got lost to my over-zealous snipping (.u'u), but the example started
with something like {ro boi ny. zo'u...}. {ro ny. zo'u...} doesn't parse,
in the same way that {ci zo'u...} doesn't, and wouldn't make any obvious
sense if it did.

---
#^t'm::>#shs>:#,_$1+9j9"^>h>" < v
:>8*0\j" o'u" v" e'i" v".neta"^q>
;z,[; > > ^