Xorban Development - engelang messages

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I hadn't seen the full thread on Jboske until yesterday. I think it's
> perfectly sensible to reserve two variables for "me" and "you". This is
> pretty much what deictic references are, variables bound by discourse
> circumstances. We'd probably want several of these, actually.

I was thinking of perhaps reserving the 25 V'V variables for
pre-assigned or assignable constants.

Right, and leave the short ones for local scope. So far we have {a'a}=me and {e'e}=you.

>> la le nnle li nxli tvlekifa vska'aka
>> The x which the y which is a boy the z which is a girl, y talks to z
>> in x, I see x
>> I see the boy talking to the girl.
>
> I take it that the {l-} encodes something like specificity or
> definiteness, but what is the exact meaning and logical mechanism?

All I know is that the variable quantified by l- acts basically like a
constant, if that's what you call specific/definite.

I think that specific entails constant but not the reverse.

> What are
> the other basic quantifiers? {r-} for universal and perhaps {s-} for
> existential?

Those are the ones I have so far. I don't want to include Lojban's
"no" because it can easily be obtained as "na s-" and so it's not
worth wasing a C- on that. Same for "na r-". Perhaps we may add "m-"
for "many".

Very good. Plenty of natlangs do similar. Plus these morphemes are phonologically minimal. Another syllable here and there doesn't hurt.

> How are generics as in "I like chocolate" handled in this language?

So far with "l-". That's how I handle them in Lojban, with "lo". "la
ckla nlca'aka".

Okay, what you're basically saying here is that "l-" doesn't encode specificity nor does it quantify, in which case I'd say it doesn't mean anything, nor does it do anything other than perhaps occasionally introduce a variable that one is just going to repeat later in the predicate. Why not just drop "l-" and let predicates introduce their own throw-away variables when the need arises? What's wrong with:

- nnla rzge nxli dndakeki
= A/the boy gives a/the rose to a/the girl.

- nnla nxli dndakeki
= A/the boy gives [something] to a/the girl.

- sa nnla rzge ri nxli dndakeki
= Some boy gives a/the rose to every girl.

- sa nnla ri nxli dndakeki
= Some boy gives [something] to every girl.

If a variable has to be introduced early for some scope-related reason, use a generic predicate like perhaps {zst}.

If we can safely drop "l-" for constant, maybe we can recycle it to allow specificity to be marked optionally, which is something I often find useful (I may be biased due to being English-L1 though):

- la nnla rzge nxli dndakeki
= The[=a specific one, it should be clear which] boy gives a/the rose to a/the girl.

Alternatively, "l-" can go back into the unallocated C- pool.

>> Alternatively, and perhaps easier to parse:
>>
>> la nnla le nxle li tvlakefi vska'aki
>> The boy, the girl, the event in which he talks to her, I see it.
>>
>> Also perhaps things like:
>>
>> la nnla le nxle ri tvlekafi xnrafi
>> The boy, the girl, every time she talks to him, he blushes.
>
> Is the scope of {a} and {e} here wider than that of {e} and {i} in the
> earlier example?

The scope is completely determined by the parse. So:

la nnla: (le nxle: (ri tvlekafi: xnrafi))

But the logical properties of "l-" mean that you can move them around
quite freely, so:

le nxle: (la nnla: (ri tvlekafi: xnrafi))

has the same meaning, and so does:

ri la nnla: (ri (le nxle: tvlekafi): xnrafi)

Okay, that makes sense.

> Are there situations in which variables like {a} "stick"
> and become essentially anaphora, and if so when?

I don't know. We could have some of the reserved variables behave this
way, but that would mean you have to plan in advance which argumants
you would want to keep around.

It seems natural to suggest a series of V'V-space e.g. {o'V} that automatically declare anaphora, at least now for experimental purposes.

- nnlo'a nxlo'e tvlake [.i] rzga dndo'akako'e
= The boy is talking to the girl. He gives her a rose.

It is unclear that anaphora in all cases should be declarable when under quantified scope, but I think it's generally safe with what you call constants.

> In which situations are they short scope?

Definitely when bound by "r-" and "s-" they must stay within the
quantifier's scope. When bound by "l-" there's more room to play with.

If you agree with above, only o'V (and other defined V'V) will range out of their parse-determined scope.

>> One other thing I thought about is numbers. I would not make them
>> quantifiers as in Lojban, but just ordinary predicates: "x1 is one",
>> "x1 are two", "x1 are three", etc, basically Lojban's "PA mei". They
>> could be constructed by assigning a letter to each digit and then
>> reserving a prefix (say nm-) to form each predicate: nmpa "a is one",
>> nmra "a are two", nmxxxa "a are 666".
>
> I am curious about "noun phrase"/term syntax but I think I've asked enough
> questions for now.

The only connective we have so far is "je", so we can have:

la je nmca je xkra mlta je bjra le smce jrsake
"The three black cats run and chase mice."
The x such that (three(x) & (black(x) & cat(x))): (run(x) & (the y
such that mice(y): chase(x,y))

It would be nice to have something along the lines of your serial
predicates, but I can't just string predicates together with the
current grammar.

Oops. I may be breaking your system by dropping/changing "l-".

At any rate, Xorban will eventually have to allow adverbial expressions, including whose with arguments. Morneau's system is just one possible rationalization of a universal need.

>> That's about all I have so far.
>
> It's a promising start. I hope that you will continue to develop it.

Only if there are more questions. :)

You have these. Other questions are ready to be loaded on trucks and sent your way. :)