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

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:34:34 -0500

At 02:00 AM 1/30/03 +0000, Martin Bays wrote:
>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

Assuming that John in CLL doesn't override something I say here:

DA always is implicitly presumed to be quantified in some prenex, whether 
that prenex is explicitly stated or not. The rules for what scope level an 
implicit prenex is at, should be in CLL. Only DA and DA-with-subscripts 
are inherently presumed to be bound (quantified) variables.

An explicit prenex (or the implicit prenex generated by the scope rules) 
has scope over the shortest-scope sentence/bridi it is attached to, though 
this scope can be formally extended in afterthought using I+JE (the 
connection implied by I alone may or may not be a logical one, which is why 
it is considered "informal"), or in forethought using TUhE/TUhU.

lerfu and KOhA, which are not inherently bound (quantified) variables 
remain assigned indefinitely, until reassigned using GOI or an explicit 
prenex citation or released using a DAhO or a NIhO-construct of the level 
wherein the value was first assigned (i.e. if the text is marked with 
ni'oni'o, then ni'o alone does not release the values.)

>for each of the following uses
> (i) [sumbasti] ninmu
> (ii) [sumbasti] poi remna cu ninmu

In these circumstances, KOhA/lerfu are not presumed to be quantified 
variables, but are merely names/symbols for some fixed assignments.

> (iii) [sumbasti] zo'u [sumbasti] ninmu
> (iv) [sumbasti] poi remna zo'u [sumbasti] ninmu

For these circumstances, KOhA lerfu should have scope determined as per any 
other prenex variable - determined by the scope of the prenex.

>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?

For DA that is correct. Since lerfu/KOhA are unbound, and presumed 
already-defined, I think they have implicit quantifier "ro" I guess that 
you COULD use a lerfu as a bound variable by *explicitly* quantifying it in 
a prenex.

> - Does using {[sumbasti] bi'u} change anything? How about
>{sumbasti da'o}?

bi'u was intended primarily to deal with "le" descriptions, I think to deal 
with the sorts of things we convey in English with "a"/"the" in alternation.

> - 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?

Only with goi is assignment explicitly defined. Implicit assignment by 
using the right letters is informal and subject to whatever 
misunderstandings the listener might make as for whether a given lerfu is 
being reassigned or not. Normally we don't use informal initials (without 
GOI) except for very short term ad-hoc situations where there will be no 
confusion what the referent is.

>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.

The rules are different for bound and unbound variables.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org