From bpfk-list+bncCAAQutfC5gQaBOZVBC0@googlegroups.com Tue Nov 02 17:24:42 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PDR9a-0003cc-80; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:24:42 -0700 Received: by yxe42 with SMTP id 42sf68251yxe.16 for ; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:24:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:x-beenthere:received :received:received:received:received:received-spf:received:received :received:date:message-id:to:subject:from:x-spam_score :x-spam_score_int:x-spam_bar:x-spam_report:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=esTMCUVpl3gq/QrxpElqyFLr3vqxohSuzmNHd5Rxqio=; b=rubHJ553SBoooLYg145rbsOILa7CReKVykqtLCfi2gctH/E836pKPwZziFRdTA293W SsyIYJ18B3o3kA8sPi5wLK7xrn1HplInu9pFXPENk8486/Wb5G0OnqRylw+59MPvJShY 1zOAsmlNP+JQXlQt8JAJh+smw231kXdwU5xrc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:x-beenthere:received-spf:date:message-id:to:subject :from:x-spam_score:x-spam_score_int:x-spam_bar:x-spam_report :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=I/gX6sP0tmp8Prr7ELsKsyaZEItDhNy4adUFWjl5daVG/WAvz1K/AqASCQTId89mYa /JOKfh+jTFm2NqUgbHsqQzNy6KbFmLmobrvvaIBlag7ajX4TxUejTp13nJiZXqMxJkX6 A5AsAFjCPkOcV39NeKw92X/xVvV+POhBAwacg= Received: by 10.151.17.4 with SMTP id u4mr1487ybi.32.1288743866137; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:24:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.151.85.5 with SMTP id n5ls302944ybl.2.p; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.49.6 with SMTP id b6mr5293ybk.43.1288743865784; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.134.9 with SMTP id h9mr4854754wfd.21.1288743694597; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.134.9 with SMTP id h9mr4854753wfd.21.1288743694550; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (digitalkingdom.org [173.13.139.234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y8si13716437wfj.1.2010.11.02.17.21.34; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of nobody@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.234; Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PDR6b-0003Td-7X for bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:21:33 -0700 Received: from 128-177-28-49.ip.openhosting.com ([128.177.28.49] helo=oh-www1.lojban.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PDR6W-0003TT-M1 for bpfk@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:21:33 -0700 Received: from www-data by oh-www1.lojban.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PDR6N-00049o-Hk for bpfk@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:21:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:21:19 -0400 Message-Id: To: bpfk@lojban.org Subject: [bpfk] dag-cll git updates for Tue Nov 2 20:21:18 EDT 2010 From: www-data X-Spam_score: 1.2 X-Spam_score_int: 12 X-Spam_bar: + X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: commit a4eb756876f14468ebcadd855f4ab9e581cb2692 Author: Robin Lee Powell Date: Tue Nov 2 17:02:32 2010 -0700 BRinging chapter 15 in line with the red book. diff --git a/15/3/index.html b/15/3/index.html index b981a9f..0c53852 100644 --- a/15/3/index.html +++ b/15/3/index.html @@ -96,21 +96,21 @@ although these would clarify the vague negation. Another circumlocution for Engl To be immoral is much more than to just be not moral: it implies the opposite condition. Statements like Example 3.15 are strong negations which not only deny the truth of a statement, but assert its opposite. Since, “opposite” implies a scale, polar negations are a special variety of scalar negations.

To examine this concept more closely, let us draw a linear scale, showing two examples of how the scale is used:

 Affirmations (positive)
   Negations (negative) ||||| All Most Some Few None Excellent Good Fair Poor
    Awful

Some scales are more binary than the examples we diagrammed. Thus we have “not necessary” or “unnecessary” being the polar opposite of necessary. Another scale, especially relevant to Lojban, is interpreted based on situations modified by one’s philosophy: “not true” may be equated with “false” in a bi-valued truth-functional logic, while in tri-valued logic an intermediate between “true” and “false” is permitted, and in fuzzy logic a continuous scale exists from true to false. The meaning of “not true” requires a knowledge of which variety of truth scale is being considered.

-

We will define the most general form of scalar negation as indicating only that the particular point or value in the scale or range is not valid and that some other (unspecified) point on the scale is correct. This is the intent expressed in most contexts by “not mild”.

+

We will define the most general form of scalar negation as indicating only that the particular point or value in the scale or range is not valid and that some other (unspecified) point on the scale is correct. This is the intent expressed in most contexts by “not mild”, for example.

[...] Content analysis details: (1.2 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.7 TVD_RCVD_IP TVD_RCVD_IP -0.5 BAYES_05 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 1 to 5% [score: 0.0158] 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS X-Original-Sender: www-data@oh-www1.lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of nobody@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=nobody@digitalkingdom.org Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable commit a4eb756876f14468ebcadd855f4ab9e581cb2692 Author: Robin Lee Powell Date: Tue Nov 2 17:02:32 2010 -0700 BRinging chapter 15 in line with the red book. diff --git a/15/3/index.html b/15/3/index.html index b981a9f..0c53852 100644 --- a/15/3/index.html +++ b/15/3/index.html @@ -96,21 +96,21 @@ although these would clarify the vague negation. Anothe= r circumlocution for Engl To be immoral is much more than to just be not moral: it implies the oppos= ite condition. Statements like Example 3.15 are s= trong negations which not only deny the truth of a statement, but assert it= s opposite. Since, =93opposite=94 implies a scale, polar negations are a sp= ecial variety of scalar negations.

To examine this concept more closely, let us draw a linear scale, showi= ng two examples of how the scale is used:

     Affirmations (positive)      Negations (negative)
     |-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
     All       Most        Some         Few       None
     Excellent Good        Fair         Poor     Awful

Some scales are more binary than the examples we diagrammed. Thus we ha= ve =93not necessary=94 or =93unnecessary=94 being the polar opposite of nec= essary. Another scale, especially relevant to Lojban, is interpreted based = on situations modified by one=92s philosophy: =93not true=94 may be equated= with =93false=94 in a bi-valued truth-functional logic, while in tri-value= d logic an intermediate between =93true=94 and =93false=94 is permitted, an= d in fuzzy logic a continuous scale exists from true to false. The meaning = of =93not true=94 requires a knowledge of which variety of truth scale is b= eing considered.

-

We will define the most general form of scalar negation as indicating o= nly that the particular point or value in the scale or range is not valid a= nd that some other (unspecified) point on the scale is correct. This is the= intent expressed in most contexts by =93not mild=94.

+

We will define the most general form of scalar negation as indicating o= nly that the particular point or value in the scale or range is not valid a= nd that some other (unspecified) point on the scale is correct. This is the= intent expressed in most contexts by =93not mild=94, for example.

Using this paradigm, contradictory negation is less restrictive than sc= alar negation =97 it says that the point or value stated is incorrect (fals= e), and makes no statement about the truth of any other point or value, whe= ther or not on the scale.

In English, scalar negation semantically includes phrases such as =93ot= her than=94, =93reverse of=94, or =93opposite from=94 expressions and their= equivalents. More commonly, scalar negation is expressed in English by the= prefixes =93non-=94, =93un-=94, =93il-=94, and =93im-=94. Just which form = and permissible values are implied by a scalar negation is dependent on the= semantics of the word or concept which is being negated, and on the contex= t. Much confusion in English results from the uncontrolled variations in me= aning of these phrases and prefixes.

In the examples of Section 4, we will translate t= he general case of scalar negation using the general formula =93other than= =94 when a phrase is scalar-negated, and =93non-=94 when a single word is s= calar-negated.

Previous<= /div>
bridi negation
diff --git a/15/5/index.html b/15/5/index.html index 6ef0a37..404ddcd 100644 --- a/15/5/index.html +++ b/15/5/index.html @@ -18,21 +18,21 @@
Next
sumti negation
=93No=94 Problems: On Lojban Negation
The Lojban Reference Gram= mar

5. Expressing scales in selbri negation

-

In expressing a scalar negation, we must provide some indication of the= scale, range, frame-of-reference, or universe of discourse that is being d= ealt with in an assertion. As stated in Section 4, th= e default is the set of plausible alternatives. Thus if we say:

+

In expressing a scalar negation, we can provide some indication of the = scale, range, frame-of-reference, or universe of discourse that is being de= alt with in an assertion. As stated in Section 4, the= default is the set of plausible alternatives. Thus if we say:

 5.1)   le stizu cu na'e xunre
        The chair is a non-(red-thing).
the pragmatic interpretation is that we mean a different color and not 
 5.2)   le stizu cu dzukla be le zarci
        The chair walkingly-goes-to-the-market.

However, if we have reason to be more explicit (an obtuse or contrary l= istener, or simply an overt logical analysis), we can clarify that we are r= eferring to a color by saying:

diff --git a/15/9/index.html b/15/9/index.html index 2e0e540..96d6245 100644 --- a/15/9/index.html +++ b/15/9/index.html @@ -43,29 +43,29 @@ or equivalently [repeat previous] A plain =93go'i=94 does not mean =93Yes it is=94; it merely abbreviates re= peating the previous statement unmodified, including any negators present; = and Example 9.3 actually states that it is false t= hat John went to both Paris and Rome.

When considering:

 9.4)   na go'i
        [false] [repeat previous]
as a response to a negative question like Example 9.2= , Lojban designers had to choose between two equally plausible interpre= tations with opposite effects. Does Example 9.4 cr= eate a double negative in the sentence by adding a new =93na=94 to the one = already there (forming a double negative and hence a positive statement), o= r does the =93na=94 replace the previous one, leaving the sentence unchange= d?

It was decided that substitution, the latter alternative, is the prefer= able choice, since it is then clear whether we intend a positive or a negat= ive sentence without performing any manipulations. This is the way English = usually works, but not all languages work this way =97 Russian, Japanese, a= nd Navajo all interpret a negative reply to a negative question as positive= .

-

The positive assertion cmavo of selma'o NA can also replace the =93na= =94 in the context, giving:

+

The positive assertion cmavo of selma'o NA, which is "ja'a", can also r= eplace the =93na=94 in the context, giving:

 9.5)   ja'a go'i
        (John truly-(previously went-to) [both] Paris and Rome.)
=93ja'a=94 can replace =93na=94 in a similar manner wherever the latter is= used: 
-9.6)   ja'a go'i
-       John indeed previously went-to [both] Paris and Rome.
+9.6)   mi ja'a klama le zarci=20
+       I indeed go to the store.

=93je'a=94 can replace =93na'e=94 in exactly the same way, stating that= scalar negation does not apply, and that the relation indeed holds as stat= ed. In the absence of a negation context, it emphasizes the positive:

 9.7)   ta je'a melbi
        that is-indeed beautiful.
Previous<= /div> --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg= roups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l= ist?hl=3Den.