WikiDiscuss

xorxes:

> sentence = selbri [fa sumti ...] /VAU/
> | NA KU ZOhU sentence
> | tag /KU/ ZOhU sentence
> | tag sumti ZUhU sentence
> | quantifier DA
> relative-clauses ZOhU sentence
> | gek sentence gik sentence
>
>
> selbri = Any untagged and unnegated selbri
> (selbri-2 in the EBNF grammar)
>
> sumti = Any unquantified sumti (sumti-6 in
> the EBNF grammar)
>
> tag = tag in the EBNF grammar
>
> gek = gek in the EBNF grammar
>
> gik = gik in the EBNF grammar
>
> (DA are da, de, di and any additional indexed
> variables as needed)
>
> The above grammar is a sub-grammar of the
> Lojban grammar. By that I mean that every
> sentence it generates is a valid sentence of
> the Lojban grammar. I contend that every Lojban
> sentence has a corresponding reduced logical
> form generated from this grammar.

Ah, the LoCCan use of words!. "Reduced" here
applies, I suppose, the dropping the "logically
irrelevant" bits; for the most part sentences are
expanded to get these forms (prenexing requires
anaphora, forethought connectives are regularly
longer than afterthought and shifting to
sentential requires repetitions). Terminology
aside, however, this seems a useful thing to do
for a logical language, moving toward (or away
from, since this is likely a deeper structure
grammar than the usual one — or so a logically
corrupted linguist would say) the form suited for
usual logical applications. The contention is the
usual (ultimately unsupported — in natural
languages) assumption of applied formalized
logics.

>The idea is
> simple: to get the reduced logical form
> eliminate indicators and free modifiers, move
> quantifiers and negations to the prenex, expand
> all logical connectives to forethought sentence
> connectives and finally move all the arguments
> behind the selbri.

For the real deep logical sturcture, it would be
good to get the modals etc. out to the front as
well. This is somewhat problematic, since the
modals (including tense/aspect and mood)is not
grammatically, but only lexically, specifiable.
And there may be cases where this brings to light
ambiguities — in the speaker's intentions,
though maybe not in the Lojban text (details of
the relative placement of tense, mode, negation
and quantification which cannot be dealt with in
the narrow confines of the preselbri slot). The
use of forethought connectives is tidy though not
essential, as is the shift to VSO order.
The devil is, of course, in
> the details. I intend to work out an algorithm
> for producing the reduced logical form for any
> Lojban sentence. (In fact I think there are a
> couple of tricky places where it may not be
> doable, but at least this will show what they
> are.)

As noted, the history of doing this with natural
languages shows that there seem to be intractable
points, readily solved by human intervention but
not algorithmable. They are not generally the
logically interesting cases,though — since where
they are differs from language to language --
sometimes they are crucial. Human intervention,
alas, raises the possibility of special pleading
-- doing the regimentation in a certain way to
justify a certain (predetermined) result rather
than for objective reasons, so it is to be used
very sparingly.

The purpose of this exercise is to
> clarify the argument for the scope of NA. In
> the reduced logical form the relative scopes of
> the different operators are fairly obvious.

The relative scope in each case is just
everything after it in the same sentence (which
is also rather better defined in this
representation).

Is this all about the issue — which has been
around since the beginning of Loglan — of where
sentential negation goes? It is clear, of
course, in prenex form — though in the shift to
forethought connectives some problems could
reappear if {nagi} is allows from {na.a} etc.
(e.g. "only if" for conditionals). I suppose
that, if we shifted everything to "reduced" form,
some rules would be clearer but that does not
solve the issue of where negation goes in
colloquial usage — the issue that has come up
over and over. The prenex position is logically
desirable, but sociolinguistically someplace
close to the verb (after it in VSO and VOS
formats typically, and frequently also in --V)is
the norm. It is not clear why this is the case,
but it seems to be a powerful tendency, hard to
get people to change from. I suppose that is whay
it is retained in Loglan and then in Lojban, even
with all the probolems it generates in other
respects.

pc:
> Ah, the LoCCan use of words!. "Reduced" here
> applies, I suppose, the dropping the "logically
> irrelevant" bits;

Right, and also reducing the various ways of doing
the same thing (as in afterthought vs. forethoght).

> for the most part sentences are
> expanded to get these forms (prenexing requires
> anaphora, forethought connectives are regularly
> longer than afterthought and shifting to
> sentential requires repetitions).

Yes, definitely. It's reduced in complexity,
but usually expanded in size.

> Terminology
> aside, however, this seems a useful thing to do
> for a logical language, moving toward (or away
> from, since this is likely a deeper structure
> grammar than the usual one — or so a logically
> corrupted linguist would say) the form suited for
> usual logical applications. The contention is the
> usual (ultimately unsupported — in natural
> languages) assumption of applied formalized
> logics.

In the case of Lojban the contention is much less
contentious, given that it is almost purely a formal matter.
I am not claiming that two sentences with the same reduced
form will have the same meaning. All I say is that they
have the same propositional content, but the meaning
usually involves more than that. This is clear, 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.

> For the real deep logical sturcture, it would be
> good to get the modals etc. out to the front as
> well.

If the modals are {ka'e} and company, they are already

there: that's what provides.

> This is somewhat problematic, since the
> modals (including tense/aspect and mood)is not
> grammatically, but only lexically, specifiable.

They are specified in the same way as negation:
{na ku}, {pu ku}, {ka'e ku}, etc.

> And there may be cases where this brings to light
> ambiguities — in the speaker's intentions,
> though maybe not in the Lojban text (details of
> the relative placement of tense, mode, negation
> and quantification which cannot be dealt with in
> the narrow confines of the preselbri slot).

I haven't fully considered this yet. Do you have any
examples in mind?

> The
> use of forethought connectives is tidy though not
> essential, as is the shift to VSO order.

With forethought connecives we can get rid of all
the bracketing stuff, much tidier. VSO order I just
included to settle on a single form as the reduced form.

> The purpose of this exercise is to
> > clarify the argument for the scope of NA. In
> > the reduced logical form the relative scopes of
> > the different operators are fairly obvious.
>
> The relative scope in each case is just
> everything after it in the same sentence (which
> is also rather better defined in this
> representation).

Exactly.

> Is this all about the issue — which has been
> around since the beginning of Loglan — of where
> sentential negation goes? It is clear, of
> course, in prenex form — though in the shift to
> forethought connectives some problems could
> reappear if {nagi} is allows from {na.a} etc.
> (e.g. "only if" for conditionals).

{na.a} expands to {ganai ... gi ...}.

{nagi} is not grammatical.

{na ga ... gi ...} is equivalent to {genai ... ginai ....}
which is also {ge naku zo'u .... gi naku zo'u ...}.

> I suppose
> that, if we shifted everything to "reduced" form,
> some rules would be clearer but that does not
> solve the issue of where negation goes in
> colloquial usage — the issue that has come up
> over and over.

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.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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

---

wrote:

> pc:
> > Terminology
> > aside, however, this seems a useful thing to
> do
> > for a logical language, moving toward (or
> away
> > from, since this is likely a deeper structure
> > grammar than the usual one — or so a
> logically
> > corrupted linguist would say) the form suited
> for
> > usual logical applications. The contention is
> the
> > usual (ultimately unsupported — in natural
> > languages) assumption of applied formalized
> > logics.
>
> In the case of Lojban the contention is much
> less
> contentious, given that it is almost purely a
> formal matter.
> I am not claiming that two sentences with the
> same reduced
> form will have the same meaning. All I say is
> that they
> have the same propositional content, but the
> meaning
> usually involves more than that. This is clear,
> 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.

> > For the real deep logical sturcture, it would
> be
> > good to get the modals etc. out to the front
> as
> > well.
>
> If the modals are {ka'e} and company, they are
> already

> there: that's what

> provides.
>
see above: questioning, comanding, hypothesizing
and do on all play significant logical roles.

> > This is somewhat problematic, since the
> > modals (including tense/aspect and mood)is
> not
> > grammatically, but only lexically,
> specifiable.
>
> They are specified in the same way as negation:
> {na ku}, {pu ku}, {ka'e ku}, etc.
>
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).

> > And there may be cases where this brings to
> light
> > ambiguities — in the speaker's intentions,
> > though maybe not in the Lojban text (details
> of
> > the relative placement of tense, mode,
> negation
> > and quantification which cannot be dealt with
> in
> > the narrow confines of the preselbri slot).
>
> I haven't fully considered this yet. Do you
> have any
> examples in mind?
>
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." These are significant differences for which
the tight preselbri usually allows at most one
expression — not clearly one or the other.
Sorting those out may test the algorithms.

>
> > Is this all about the issue — which has been
> > around since the beginning of Loglan — of
> where
> > sentential negation goes? It is clear, of
> > course, in prenex form — though in the shift
> to
> > forethought connectives some problems could
> > reappear if {nagi} is allows from {na.a} etc.
> > (e.g. "only if" for conditionals).
>
> {na.a} expands to {ganai ... gi ...}.

A good rule for the purpose, but a hard one to
teach for some reason.
>
> {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).
>
> {na ga ... gi ...} is equivalent to {genai ...
> ginai ....}
> which is also {ge naku zo'u .... gi naku zo'u
> ...}.
>
> > I suppose
> > that, if we shifted everything to "reduced"
> form,
> > some rules would be clearer but that does not
> > solve the issue of where negation goes in
> > colloquial usage — the issue that has come
> up
> > over and over.
>
> 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? And the two obvious problems don't seem to
be reasons to change the rules.
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>

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

---

wrote:

>pc:

> > 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.)

pc:
>
> --- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
> > 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?

I'm happy to go with the parser here. You argued for
the other interpretation at some point. Notice that
means that for example in {su'o da na broda gi'e brode},
{na} can't have scope over {su'o}. So the general rule
that pre-selbri {na} goes to the beginning of the
prenex appears to be in conflict with the parse
in this case.

> 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.)

No left parenthesis possible there, but {naku} will
do it.

> 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 only mentioned that case because it is one where
you opposed the parse in the past, but if you now don't
oppose it, we are in agreement.

>(I
> thought this was about questions for which the
> parse is no help since they are about cross
> format equivalences, not interformat structures.)

Yes, it's mostly about those.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> >
> > --- Jorge Llambías
> <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
> > > 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?
>
> I'm happy to go with the parser here. You
> argued for
> the other interpretation at some point.

Hmmm! I wonder what the question was at that
time. Maybe I'll have to reconsider in abroader
context.

> Notice
> that
> means that for example in {su'o da na broda
> gi'e brode},
> {na} can't have scope over {su'o}. So the
> general rule
> that pre-selbri {na} goes to the beginning of
> the
> prenex appears to be in conflict with the parse
> in this case.

Ah so! Yes, that does make a difference. The
whole cannot be unpacked as {su'o da na broda ije
su'o da brode} since the two {su'o da} do not
collapse. The "source" must then be {su'o da na
broda ije da brode}, hence {su'o da zo'u da na
broda ije da brode}, where the scope of {su'o} is
clearly over that of {na}. I wonder what was the
problem under discussion that led me to the other
view. Oops!

>
> > 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.)
>
> No left parenthesis possible there, but {naku}
> will
> do it.

Surely there is some device that will give {na
(broda gi'e brode)}, whether or not it is called
a parenthesis. Working out the "source" for this
is going to be a bit messy, though; apparently it
is {naku zo'u su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da
brode} but there are questions, I suspect, about
this.
>
> > 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 only mentioned that case because it is one
> where
> you opposed the parse in the past, but if you
> now don't
> oppose it, we are in agreement.
>
> >(I
> > thought this was about questions for which
> the
> > parse is no help since they are about cross
> > format equivalences, not interformat
> structures.)
>
> Yes, it's mostly about those.
>