TECH RE: The Distribution Problem: An Ambiguity?

[I.Alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK]

Thinking about Colin's recent messages has prompted some
more observations.

> ... it is perverse to allow
>      cmalu je nixli ckule
> to mean [small school for girls], because it is very hard
> to find a meaning to attach to the constituent "cmalu je nixli"
> that allow[s] this.

Yes, I agree.  We can take it to extremes by using an analogue
of the selgadri example.

        nanla ja nixli ckule

is the same as

        nanla bo ckule je nixli bo ckule

for what I believe are essentially the same reasons as the
selgadri situation.

I've already shown the derivation in set theoretical terms.
It's been more difficult finding an intuitive explanation
which gets to the nub of the issue, but try di'e.

I think the distinction comes from the point of view you
take of the situation being described, su'anai whether
you describe a set in terms of its subsets, or conversely
describe subsets in terms of their parent set.  It's not
too surprising that this should result in different (in some
sense, dual) expressions.

        ro verba cu nanla ba'eja nixli

This describes {[lu'a] lo'i verba} in terms of the defining predicates
(characteristic functions) of two constituent parts, whereas

        ro nanla cu verba .i ba'eje ro nixli cu verba

describes {lo'i nanla} and {lo'i nixli} in terms of the common
superset {lo'i verba}.

I haven't worked out the {ckule} example in detail, but I suspect
it happens because we are describing {le ckule} in terms
of {lo'i ve ckule}, considered as the union of two subsets.
And I imagine most other such situations could yield to
a similar analysis.


So, even if you were to arbitrarily specify that tanru modification
may distribute over logical connectives, as one of the possible
interpretations of tanru ambiguity, you would then have to live with

        nanla ja nixli ckule

expanding to

        nanla bo ckule ja nixli bo ckule

(by distributivity), or to

        nanla bo ckule je nixli bo ckule

(by straightforward interpretation), which I certainly don't
find attractive.


That still leaves the question whether we want some mechanism
to _abbreviate_
        broda bo brodu je brode bo brodu
as we would in NL.  I certainly think it would be useful.
doi djan. kau,n. your {xai} proposals are fine if you can
make them work, but my instincts tell me that you're going
to have difficulty defining the semantics rigorously (although
I haven't had time to do a detailed analysis), which is why
I suggested the me la fy.py. solution.  (I think Colin's
exposition probably contains the main point of the problem,
even if you were to invent a modified-by-the-{xai} {je} which
made the details different.)

(ta'o doi kolin.
I couldn't help feeling while reading your response to protin@com.usl
that you'd got your seltanru and tertanru the wrong way round.
I thought that the seltanru came first and modified the tertanru
which was second, whereas you seem to have them vice versa.)

mi'e .i,n. .alegZANdr.