Megan Yee 997218219 LIN 177 23 February 2015

Assignment 5 1. Expand kinship.swipl by providing:

(a) A definition of greatgrandparent. (b) A definition of greatgrandfather. (c) A definition of greatgrandmother.

kinshipExpanded.swipl: %additions to the statements

individual(fafafa). individual(fafamo). individual(famofa). individual(famomo). individual(mofafa). individual(mofamo). individual(momofa). individual(momomo). male(fafafa). male(famofa). male(mofafa). male(momofa). parent(fafafa, fafa). parent(fafamo, fafa). parent(famofa, famo). parent(famomo, famo). parent(mofafa, mofa). parent(mofamo, mofa). parent(momofa, momo). parent(momomo, momo). spouse(fafafa,fafamo). spouse(famofa,famomo). spouse(mofafa,mofamo). spouse(momofa,momomo).

%additions to the rules greatgrandparent(A,B):­ %(a) parent(A,C), grandparent(C,B). greatgrandfather(A,B):­ %(b) father(A,C), grandparent(C,B).

greatgrandmother(A,B):­ %(c) mother(A,C), grandparent(C,B).

2. Many languages use kinterms that distinguish between relatives on the father’s side (or paternal relatives) from relatives on the mother’s side (or maternal relatives). Expand kinship.swipl so as to provide definitions for the following. Include both lineal and affinal relatives: (a)paternal_uncle, (b)paternal_aunt, (c)maternal_uncle, (d)maternal_aunt

kinshipExpanded.swipl: paternal_uncle(A,B):­ %(a) linealuncle brother(A,C), father(C,B). paternal_uncle(A,B):­ %(a) affinaluncle brotherinlaw(A,C), not(sibling(A,D)), mother(D,B), father(C,B). paternal_aunt(A,B):­ %(b) linealaunt sister(A,C), father(C,B). paternal_aunt(A,B):­ %(b) affinalaunt sisterinlaw(A,C), not(sibling(A,D)), mother(D,B), father(C,B). maternal_uncle(A,B):­ %(c) linealuncle brother(A,C), mother(C,B). maternal_uncle(A,B):­ %(c) affinalaunt brotherinlaw(A,C), not(sibling(A,D)), father(D,B), mother(C,B). maternal_aunt(A,B):­ %(d) linealaunt sister(A,C), mother(C,B).

maternal_aunt(A,B):­ %(d) affinalaunt sisterinlaw(A,C), not(sibling(A,D)), father(D,B), mother(C,B).

3. Provide definitions for the interpretation of this and that. You may assume any notion(s) mentioned in lecture, but no others. Argue for your definitions using the data in (1) and (2) below. You may assume that this and that refer to things, but bear in mind that here and there refer to places, not to things

(1) a. Look at this here! b. *Look at this there! (2) a. Look at that there! b. *Look at that here!

deixisExtended.swipl: place(p000).

place(p001). place(p002). place(p003). object(o000). object(o001). object(o002). object(o003). here(p000). there(P):­ place(P), not(here(P)). this(O,P):­

object(O), here(P).

that(O,P):­ object(O), not(this(O,P)).

Argument: (1) a. Look at this here!

b. *Look at this there! Looking at this data, we can see that (a) is good sentence and (b) is a bad sentence, since the definition of the word this implies that there is an object close to you. Thus, this refers to both an object in a particular place, one which is nearby.

(2) a. Look at that there! b. *Look at that here!

Similarly to this, there describes an object which is located at a place not nearby, the opposite of this. Thus, we can see that (a) is a good sentence to show the relationship of that relative to the place there, and that (b) is not a good sentence.

4. Samuel Johnson is said to have defined patriotism as the last resort of a scoundrel. Construct a small model in which every patriot is a scoundrel and every scoundrel is a patriot. Relative to such a model, the word patriot and the word scoundrel will have the same reference. Would these words also have the same meaning? Explain why or why not. Is this a good result or not? Model for patriot and scoundrel relationship:

patriot(sam). patriot(john). patriot(ben). patriot(george). scoundrel(A):­ patriot(A).

Same meaning? No, because although patriots and scoundrels have the same reference, patriots and scoundrels do not have the same meaning. This is because although we understand that in this case, patriot and scoundrel refer to the same person sam, what defines a patriot and what defines a scoundrel are different. For example, patriot’s meaning could be “someone who supports their country” and a scoundrel’s meaning could be “someone who is dishonest”, which are different meanings.

Good result of not? This is a good result because it conforms to the data wanted and does not return extra values, which makes it accurate, and it is a simple result because it simply relates all patriots as being scoundrels and defines scoundrels as being any patriot. It is also good because it is principled with the definition of scoundrel making the relationship between scoundrels and patriots, without explicitly stating that sam, john, ben, and george (as used in this example) individually are scoundrels (In PROLOG, this would be done as scoundrel(sam). scoundrel(john). and so on).

5. What are the meanings of the following sentences? What are their references relative to bedrock.swipl? In addition to ‘bedrock.swipl’, includes using the files: ‘doublecolon.swipl’ and ‘evaluation.swipl’

a. Barney is mature. Meaning: ?­ Reference::(evaluation(mature(barney)),Reference)). References: Reference = truth. b. Fred is not mature. Meaning: ?­ Reference::(evaluation(not(mature(fred)),Reference)). References: Reference = falsity. c. Fred is mature and Bambam is mature. Meaning:

?­ Reference::(evaluation((mature(fred),mature(bambam)),Reference). References: Reference = falsity. d. Fred is mature or Bambam is mature.

Meaning: ?­ Reference::(evaluation((mature(fred);mature(bambam)),Reference). References: Reference = truth.

6. Define be_born, wash, and introduce (as in John introduced Mary to Ann) by decomposing them into simpler notions. Are any of these predicates causative? Are any inchoative? If so, which? Can you argue for your decompositions by appealing to semantic intuitions like redundancy, contradiction, or entailment? You may assume that be_born is a unary predicate, wash is a binary predicate, and introduce is a ternary predicate be_born: Defined:

be_born(Entity):­ begin(alive(Entity)).

alive(Entity). Causative?

No, nothing is causing something. Inchoative?

Yes, it is the beginning of someone being alive. Appeal to semantic intuitions:

“I will be born tomorrow.” ­ This is a contradiction because since I am already born, I cannot be born again since I am already alive. “My daughter will be born and will be alive.” ­ This is redundant because being born implies that you are beginning to be alive. be_born is the opposite of die (as found in the book), which is to begin to make something dead. dead is the opposite of alive, so it makes sense that be_born is the beginning of something being alive, similarly to how die is the beginning of something being dead.

wash: Defined: wash(Person,Entity):­ make(Person,clean(Entity)). clean(Entity). Causative? Yes, causing Person to make something/someone clean. Inchoative? No. Appeal to semantic intuitions:

“I wash the dishes.” ­ Washing something entails that the object being washed will become clean, and at some point it was dirty before.

introduce: Defined: introduce(Person1,Person2,Person3):­ make(Person1, meet(Person2,Person3)). Causative? Yes, Person1 is causing meeting of Person2 and Person3. Inchoative?

Yes, because the definition includes meet, which is when you begin to know a person.

Appeal to semantic intuitions: “I will introduce my mom to my older sister.” ­ This is contradicting and redundant because we would assume her mother to already know her own daughter, thus they could not be introduced for the first time again (would be “reintroduce”, not introduce). “I want to introduce my friend to my mom.” ­ Introducing my friend to my mom entails that they do not know each other, but will as a result of the introduction.