Re: [engelang] Xorban: Termsets - engelang messages

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:59 AM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> formula := CCA | term formula | foretree formula | formula aftertree
>> >> aftertree := HI | term aftertree | JA aftertree aftertree
>> >> foretree := HE | term foretree | JA foretree foretree
>> >> term := NA | LA formula | JA formula
>
> There is another solution possible though: (2) Certain terms in an prior
> tree (namely bindings of variables not otherwise bound and "f-" terms) that
> are not specifically overridden in the subsequent tree are assumed to be in
> the inner tree as well (it generally won't make sense to apply "f-" to a
> tree anyway, because trees aren't formulas and therefore can't have event
> arguments;

But trees are pseudo-formulas syntactically, and they are formulas
semantically. I'm not sure why you say it won't make sense to apply f-
to one.

I said that at the time because I couldn't think of a good example otherwise, but now I think I have one:

loku ( fo le nnle li crdi he )( fu le nxle li ckti he ) la ma djna dndakike je vska'ako vske'eku

... which expanded would be:

loku je ( fo le nnle li crdi la ma djna dndakike )( fu le nxle li ckti la ma djna dndakike ) je vska'ako vske'eku
"The situations in which John gives the boy a radio, and in which John gives the girl a book, I see the one and you see the other."

So yes, it does make sense to apply "f-" to trees.

> and it doesn't harm anything to add more variable bindings).
> Aftertrees would be considered more prior than foretrees, the better to
> reflect their afterthought nature. This could not apply to "na", though.
> Here's an example previously shown:
>
> lo ( fo la ma djna le nnle li crdi he )( le nxle li ckti he ) dndakike
> "(O) is the situation in which John gives to the boy a radio and to the
> girl a book."

I think I'm missing something here. That can't be a complete sentence
because "lo" is followed by a single formula.

Sorry I meant to either delete "lo" or put "vska'ako" at the end.

If we remove "lo", it could be "O is a situation in which John gives
to the boy a radio and to the girl a book." but I don't see why it
wouldn't be "(O is a situation in which John gives to the boy a radio)
and (A gives the girl a book)." A would be taken to be John by the
implicit binding rule, but it would not be explicitly bound. In order
to get both events into O we do need "je": "fo la ma djna je le nnle
li crdi he le nxle li ckti he dndakike" or "fo je la ma djna le nnle
li crdi he le nxle li ckti he dndakike

Yes, that all follows. My idea (2) was to have "fo" in one tree spread to the others automatically, but I see now that that would give "f-" unwarranted special powers that aren't even really needed. Stylistically I would prefer to move "fo" to the core predicate, but the other solution using "je" to unify the trees for "fo" to modify works just as well. One reason why I prefer moving "fo" forward is that it sidesteps thinking about "je" for once; another is that it leaves "lo" behind which blocks the tree from growing backwards; a tree can't consume a binder. (As long as "fo" is taken care of and variables are unique in bindings, a tree can grow backwards to the beginning of a sentence with no ill effect so the second consideration is mostly stylistic.)

> Note that under solution (2) the second foretree will inherit the fronted
> terms "fo, la ma djna" from the first foretree which would naturally consume
> them and hide them. It wouldn't inherit "le nnle, li crdi" because "le nxle
> li ckti" would block/override those bindings.
>
> It would work similarly either way. There are going to be some syntactic
> restraints either way or any other way you can think of, and as I mentioned
> I am in no rush to make these particles official before they're fully
> tested.

I do want to keep the formal grammar unambiguous though, so it will
need to be considerably more complex if we want to keep he/hi.

co ma'a xrxe