Wiki page Reduced logical form changed

posts: 2388



> > The usual cases in natural languages are
> mixed
> > prefixes: modal and quantifier, for example:
> > "there is some that did" and "there was
> something
> > that did" or tense and modal "it used to be
> > possible that" v. "it is possible that it
> used to
> > be."
> Those are both doable in the proposed reduced
> form:
> {su'o da zo'u pu ku zo'u ....} vs
> {pu ku zo'u su'o da zo'u ...}
> and {pu ku zo'u ka'e ku zo'u ...}
> vs {ka'e ku zo'u pu ku zo'u ...}

Sorry I was unclear. Of course these can be done
in prenex since they caan be done in standard
logic, which is what prenex is, more or less.
What the problem is is to figure out — let alone
algorithmatize — which of these the normal forms
mean. The obvious automatic rules will laeways
give a decision, but, based on the work in
natural languages, the decision is only randomly
the one intended. Throw in some negations too to
make it fun.

> > > {na.a} expands to {ganai ... gi ...}.
> >
> > A good rule for the purpose, but a hard one
> to
> > teach for some reason.
> Because it looks as if {na} was negating {a}
> rather
> than the first connectand, I suppose.
It's hard even for those who think that that
would have to be {naku}

> > > {nagi} is not grammatical.
> >
> > That was a more dubious call, since even in
> > Polish the distinction is often colloquially
> > useful (but also often just confusing).
> {ge ... naku gi ...} is quite acceptable
> though.

Nice; it creates the same problem, indeed more so
since its negation seems to point only to the
right (on what seems to be the general reading of
the {naku} form) but actually goes only left.

> > > Yes. But seeing what the shift rules are in
> > > full
> > > (or as much in full as we can manage) will
> > > hopefully
> > > make it easier to decide which rule we
> should
> > > to adopt.
> > >
> > I didn't know the rules were up for grabs.
> What
> > — aside from people being too lazy or
> ignorant
> > to use them — was the matter with the set we
> > had?
> Incompleteness, mainly.
Incompleteness in the sense that there are
situations where there is no rule to get to a
more transparent format? Are there such?
Incompleteness in the sense that there are forms
in the transparent format which we cannot get
from the normal format definitely occurs (can't
give examples because then it is possible to
argue that that is what the rule gives, in which
case it is the other form that is wanted, but if
I give that as an example, then....).

> We don't know for sure, for example, whether
> {na broda gi'e brode} is {(na broda) gi'e
> (brode)},
> as the parser says, or {na (broda gi'e brode)}.
If the parser says one way rather than the other,
then that presumably is what it is. What more do
you want in the way of a rule? (Although I have
to admit that parser boxes are often right only
for this peculiar grammar and not for any obvious
general linguidstic description — one of the
consequences of trying to write a grammar for a
real languages which is LALR1 — another being a
mass of empty grammatical constructions and the
need for countless little words that don't really
do anything. In this case, however, the parser
is in accord with the general pattern of the
language and we would expect a left parenthesis
after {na} to get the other form.)

> > And the two obvious problems don't seem to
> > be reasons to change the rules.
> If there are no good reasons, and we can figure
> out
> what the rules actually are, they probably
> won't be
> changed.
It seems by the last example that when you have a
case of what the rules actually are you still
have questions. What more is wanted for
figureing out what the rules actually are. (I
thought this was about questions for which the
parse is no help since they are about cross
format equivalences, not interformat structures.)