1. keep the current situiation, and regard {soi} as an exception of scope of terms;2. keep the current situiation, and let {soi} loose the power of left-scope ({soi} becomes the same as {xoi});3. create a new grammatical property for {soi}, and keep {xoi} as it is;4. allow {soi}-clause become a "free", that has the same property as {sei}-clause (easier than 3.);5. other.
(NIhO [I {FA ZOhE} {CU <FASNU (¹FA [LO {NU <(²FA mi²) (²CU [broda VAU]²)> KEI} KU] [noi {<FA ZOhE> <CU (²mo VAU²)>} KUhO]¹) VAU>}])
Can be tested at http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/altatufa-stodi.htmlConsidering the simplicity of grammar and the advantage of new SOI compared with SEI, it would be better to modify SEI so that it encloses a sentence, and merge {soi} to selma'o SEI, though this change will require more {se'u}.
2015-07-21 9:44 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:
Considering the simplicity of grammar and the advantage of new SOI compared with SEI, it would be better to modify SEI so that it encloses a sentence, and merge {soi} to selma'o SEI, though this change will require more {se'u}.
This would be absolutely devastating. {sei} is very similar to LE and that's the simplicity of the grammar.
I don't see any need in changing it, what is more the current grammar of SEI is more advantageous to me.
di'e voi cusku ki fa la .guskant. ( :P )
> In order to keep (A) in which {soi} is replaced by {xoi} be valid, new
> selma'o XOI should be substituted for the new SOI so that {xoi}-clause
> be a term.
>
> new SOI will become almost the same as SEI. The difference is only the
> bridi-tail (and pseudo-{zo'u} if {soi}-clause encloses a "subsentence").
>
> Considering the simplicity of grammar and the advantage of new SOI
> compared with SEI, it would be better to modify SEI so that it encloses
> a sentence, and merge {soi} to selma'o SEI, though this change will
> require more {se'u}.
>
> Even if {sei} and {soi} are in the same selma'o, they can be
> semantically different: {sei} will have the same scope as UI, while
> {soi} will have the broadest scope over a sentence, and may take the
> "signified" of the sentence with {ke'a} in the clause.
Let's not keep mixing topics just yet. We can make {soi} a free modifier
before worrying about doing anything to {sei}.
> By the way, on the "new soi" page, "subsentence" is suggested in
> {soi}-clause. Do you intend to use {zo'u} in {soi}-clause, or it simply
> inherited the official grammar of NU/NOI? {zo'u} in NOI- or new SOI/XOI-
> clauses may produce logical problem, and I want to avoid it if possible.
> (la zantufa-0.2 allowed "statement" including {zo'u} in NOI-clause, but
> it will be changed to "sentence" in the future version, and then {zo'u}
> in NOI-clause will be banned.)
What are the logical problems when allowing a prenex in NU/NOI/SOI? The
prenex has scope over the NU/NOI/SOI, which in turn has scope over the
main bridi.
(B) lo prenu poi ro da zo'u ke'a djica lo nu ke'a viska da
"people that are such that for all X, they want to see X"
(C) ra troci lo ka ro da zo'u lo nu da viska ce'u cu rinka lo nu da
cisma
"She attempts that for all X, X seeing her causes X to smile."
(D) ma'a ca ro xavdei lo ka vokta'a cu simxu, soi ku'i na ku ro da
poi jbopre zo'u lo nu da pagzu'e ke'a cu dikni
"On every Saturday we have vocal chats, which however is such
that not every Lojbanist is such that their taking part in them occurs
regularly."
It's not simplicity of grammar but similarity of form of description sumti and inserted bridi. If {sei}-clause could enclose a sentence, the grammar would be 23 bytes smaller. If we add {soi}-clause to "free", the structure and the usage will be very similar to {sei}-clause. If we had the structure of "SOI sentence SEhU" from the beginning of Lojban, I would have never used "SEI terms selbri SEhU".
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> (B) lo prenu poi ro da zo'u ke'a djica lo nu ke'a viska da
> "people that are such that for all X, they want to see X"
>
> zo'u in this fragment is logically meaningless because of lack of main
> bridi. If there were main bridi, the prenex could be put out:
>
> roda zo'u ko'a prenu ije ko'a djica lo nu ko'a viska da
>
> And then it becomes logically analyzable.
> Prenex in noi-clause is only a pseudo-prenex that is logically meaningless.
Why should the relative clause care about the main bridi? The relative
clause in (B) is like a predicate that attaches to {prenu} with {je}.
{poi ro da zo'u ...} could be rewritten {poi ckaji lo ka ro da zo'u
...}, and (B) could be rewritten as {lo prenu je ckaji be lo ka ...}.
At what point do you think does it stop being equivalent?
Relative clauses should care about the main bridi, because the bridi in relative clauses share their universe of discourse with the main bridi. About this example of fragment, I said only "logically meaningless", but it does not bring any problem by itself.The problem occurs in the case that plural relative clauses appears with their own prenex, sometimes nested in logical connectives. Which prenex is the outmost? How can the negations, numbers and logical connectives are transformed into a prenex normal form?
--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:43 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> ex.1)
>> ro da
>> poi su'o de
>> poi ro di zo'u di broda de da
>> zo'u de brode da di
>> zo'u da brodi de di
>>
>>
>> Do we have a rule to unify {zo'u}s nested in {poi}? Maybe the preceding
>> ones are outer, but I have never seen the rule written.
>
>
> The second and third "di" are not bound by "ro di", they are outside its
> scope. and the third "de" is not bound by "su'o de". So filling in the
> missing implicit quantifiers, your sentence becomes:
>
> ro da
> poi su'o de
> poi ro di zo'u di broda de da [ku'o su'o di]
> zo'u de brode da di [ku'o su'o de su'o di]
> zo'u da brodi de di
>
> The variable "di" is bound three times independently, and the variable "de"
> twice.
>
> A simpler example is "ro da poi su'o de zo'u da de broda zo'u da de brode".
> That's enough to show the issue you're talking about. Linguists call these
> sentences "donkey sentences", after "Every farmer who owns a donkey beats
> it". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey_sentence
>
> A variable bound within a relative clause is not available to be used
> outside the relative clause. The scope of the quantifier is limited to the
> relative clause only.
>
>> ex.2)
>> ro da
>> poi su'o de zo'u de broda da
>> zi'e poi ro di zo'u di brode da
>> zo'u da brodi de di
>>
>> Do we have a rule to unify {zo'u}s in {poi} connected with {zi'e}? Maybe
>> we can define the preceding ones are outer. If so, ex.2 seems apparently the
>> same with
>>
>> ex.2-1)
>> ro da
>> poi ro di zo'u di brode da
>> zi'e poi su'o de zo'u de broda da
>> zo'u da brodi de di
>>
>> but actually they will have different meaning.
>
>
> The two have the same meaning, but the final "de" and "di" are independent
> of the ones inside the relative clauses.
>
>> ex.3)
>> su'o de zo'u ko'a poi ro da zo'u da broda ke'a cu brode de
>>
>> When {zo'u} in {poi} is covered with a constant {ko'a}, is it considered
>> outer than {su'o de} or inner?
>
>
> This one is not problematic (other than the issue of what exactly a
> restrictive clause does to a constant, but this has nothing to do with
> whether or not the restrictive clause contains bound variables). Presumably
> "ko'a poi ro da zo'u da broda ke'a" are the ko'as that everyone brodas. So
> the sentence says that there is someone that the ko'as that everyone broda,
> brode.
2015-07-23 20:28 GMT+00:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:
>
> A variable bound within a relative clause is not available to be used
> outside the relative clause. The scope of the quantifier is limited to the
> relative clause only.This understanding would solve all my problems. However, my problems come exactly from doubt on this understanding. Could you explain the reason for that a variable bound within a relative clause is not available to be used outside the relative clause in spite of they stand on the same universe of discourse on the outer bridi?
Please correctly if I made any mistake:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 5:52 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:2015-07-23 20:28 GMT+00:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:
>
> A variable bound within a relative clause is not available to be used
> outside the relative clause. The scope of the quantifier is limited to the
> relative clause only.This understanding would solve all my problems. However, my problems come exactly from doubt on this understanding. Could you explain the reason for that a variable bound within a relative clause is not available to be used outside the relative clause in spite of they stand on the same universe of discourse on the outer bridi?That's just how first order predicate logic works. A quantifier quantifies a bridi. The variable is just a place-keeping device, internal to the mechanism of quantification, it doesn't refer to anything,
so it can't be used from outside the bridi as if it referred to something. It has nothing to do with universe of discourse.mu'o mi'e xorxes
Le dimanche 26 juillet 2015 21:34:54 UTC, Ilmen a écrit :On 26/07/2015 15:29, guskant wrote:
Le jeudi 23 juillet 2015 21:56:28 UTC, Ilmen a écrit :
ro da poi ke'a su'o de viska cu se kanla su'o di
= ro da poi su'o de zo'u ke'a de viska ku'o su'o di zo'u di da kanla
= ro da zo'u ganai su'o de zo'u da de viska gi su'o di zo'u di da kanla
= roldza fa loka ko'a ce'ai ganai suzdza fa loka ko'a ce'u viska gi suzdza fa loka ce'u ko'a kanla
= roldza fa loka ko'a ce'ai zilvlina fa lodu'u jitfa fa lodu'u suzdza fa loka ko'a ce'u viska kei kei kei fe lodu'u suzdza fa loka ce'u ko'a kanla
It seems correct. And then how do you transform it into a prenex normal form?
{ro da zo'u ganai su'o de zo'u da de viska gi su'o di zo'u di da kanla}
= ∀x((∃y(viska(x,y))) → (∃z(kanla(z,x)))
# Application of the "(∃xϕ) → ψ" ≡ "∀x(ϕ → ψ)" transformation:
≡ ∀x∀y(viska(x,y) → (∃z(kanla(z,x)))
# Application of the "ϕ → (∃xψ)" ≡ "∃x(ϕ → ψ)" transformation:
≡ ∀x∀y(∃z(viska(x,y) → kanla(z,x))
= {ro da ro de su'o di zo'u ganai da de viska gi di da kanla} (prenex normal form)
I appreciate your formation. One point to confirm is about your first formation using {roldza} and {suzdza}. That is one of a reasonable interpretation of a bridi nested in {poi}-clause, and I agree to that interpretation. Is that a common interpretation among lojban speakers? In fact, la xorxes seems to be against it, and the prenex in {poi}-clause cannot be put out according to his interpretation, and his interpretation is also consistent.
Why do I seem to be against it? I agree with Ilmen's expansions, and notice that he does have a prenex in a poi clause in one of the steps.mu'o mi'e xorxes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/ylLq6Urt3N4/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
NON-SUBORDINATING/INDEPENDENT TAGS:
• {mi sipna ri'a lo nu tatpi} entails {mi sipna}.
• {mi sipna ri'a nai lo nu tatpi} entails {mi sipna}.
• {mi citka se pi'o lo forca} entails {mi citka}.
• {snime carvi ca nai lo nu critu} entails {snime carvi}.