WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > Wiki page Reduced logical form changed > Wiki page Reduced logical form changed

Wiki page Reduced logical form changed


posts: 1912

 
pc:
> > as
> > for example {ju'a do klama le zarci}, {xu do
> > klama le zarci}
> > and {e'u do klama le zarci} all have the same
> > reduced form
> > (i.e. propositional content) but obviously
> > different meaning
> > in a wider sense.
> >
> These last examples are just the modes that ought
> also be included in what gets carried over into
> the logical form.

That will have to wait for stage 2, then. For the
moment I'm concentrating on the basic stuff:
negation, quantifiers and connectives. Tenses
come almost for free since they behave more or less
like negation (in Lojban grammar).

> I meant that there is not agrammatical way to
> specify which things are modals, etc. They are
> spread over half a dozen form classes, each of
> which contains any number of things that are not
> modal. But we can list what ought to be included
> item by item (it would take a while and some
> thought but it is a finite task).

Ok, I'll play if you want to start it, but that's
not what I'm doing here as yet.

> 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 ...}

> > {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.

> > {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.

> > 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.

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)}.

> 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.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 



Show posts: