Received: from mail-qc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]:49146)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban-beginners+bncBCRZPH6MCMIMT7UIQYCRUBGN546TO@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Th3KL-0005oi-D2; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:11:38 -0800
Received: by mail-qc0-f189.google.com with SMTP id c11sf441189qca.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:11:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references
         :subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence
         :mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help
         :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=Na65gOdTAlOfPknV8mLC9HtXJy3/r1PTdw2tat4Acb4=;
        b=JC/xP0GH6Us+9UmTLb12vXfg1umiitYbv5XxS5mR7wXvf9qMSy1RHWQI9S0K4zw+V4
         oWbpvInHcK9aPbR6ZKbARjalD2vLJuYIiCh+fLd7q65dSREGtBRhHhcZ/wWOdq7kZAkQ
         R2ev4B3SFsipk8cpcrQeiUMZ37ngKIlMhDjwQnayh5KfpTMNR2UUladWczCILhPIUwhe
         r1NjTR5/RSZO0vuEhCDb5bWvzJKeAr9AE54mJdI2O9JKGTfvq9Pv5qOy1FlGo8dZcDSd
         8uHVcuRNLvW/Scu97h1cwQ0dCWnhHOgvVrMgOM5gu8hLdakUOBrjc35jB80cH1jcMwBJ
         JCUQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references
         :subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence
         :mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help
         :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=Na65gOdTAlOfPknV8mLC9HtXJy3/r1PTdw2tat4Acb4=;
        b=DW8TIUqBwrTz6ewHQmhqEAR3gE9xFNQYhLj75ufndeJWb5pFihgKkpcfPxQGGDwsrG
         JEFY4i61kc2VAgOky0nO++zl0v+SxqYPMfYtD61vkOb4KRhDByO8hoLyntTpIneSic7a
         mW/EaT1cs97ZtlC4NngP+Wr+367hQdR5DV14q0dW2zhoAZkMIH+ggPf83cm9CU0e6d6i
         8BxnCb5GL3h5aYbf1fG705o8+989Y1oMneGFknJ+B6O8pYtI7g/qefovDLMrsEcKQqVr
         leQ3WuqHBiOhiwaGC8taaGNDIVt/wNgYIj1vlyr6D4ZEOvEpdTyvKXLkhbHXjxizNFC/
         MAgg==
Received: by 10.49.116.115 with SMTP id jv19mr1447627qeb.21.1354907466328;
        Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:11:06 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.49.94.139 with SMTP id dc11ls877691qeb.1.gmail; Fri, 07 Dec
 2012 11:11:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.26.35 with SMTP id i3mr1466755qeg.31.1354907465016;
        Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:11:05 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 11:11:04 -0800 (PST)
From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Cc: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <0f73e8a3-caf8-4984-a29c-7dfd437dcd26@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <50C23D7F.1030601@lojban.org>
References: <95cdbee4-7ddc-4f7d-bb48-4591b7c3d915@googlegroups.com> <50C10003.1080806@lojban.org> <5406c1d2-ee78-4b41-ab68-06b7cf99dce7@googlegroups.com>
 <50C23D7F.1030601@lojban.org>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban-beginners.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban-beginners+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:lojban-beginners+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:googlegroups-manage+300742228892+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1513_7003036.1354907464704"
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_1513_7003036.1354907464704
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1



On Friday, December 7, 2012 11:03:27 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:
>
> la gleki wrote: 
> > Let me see if I understand negators correctly (scheme attached in a file 
> > to this post). 
> > 
> > {na'e} says that we are somewere at another point but on the same scale. 
>
> On the negative side of the same scale, but not necessarily the opposite 
>
> > {no'e} says we are in the middle of the same scale. 
> > {to'e} says that we are at the opposite point of the same scale. 
> > {na'i} says that we are outside this scale (i.e. this predicate 
> > relationship) 
>
>
> > {na}. Here I have a problem. According to what I draw {na} means that we 
> > are not at this point of this scale and may be even outside this scale. 
> > So for me {na} is (warning! bad grammar follows) {na'i ja na'e}. 
>
> na has nothing to do with scales, but rather with truth tables.  It is 
> contradictory negation, and in general says that the predication without 
> the na is false 
>
> > But may be you prove me wrong (I'm not sure myself). 
> > 
> > Anyway, I want all types of negation to fit on the same scheme. 
>
> They can't because negation is NOT a single scheme, conceptually.  There 
> is contradictory negation and contrary/scalar negation. 
>
> The negation chapter of CLL goes into this at length. 
>
> > Last time when I draw a similar scheme I could completely solve (at 
> > least for myself) the problem of subjunctives in lojban. 
> > Now it's time for negation. 
>
> You have to know the problem in order to solve the problem.  At the time 
> we solved it, the most comprehensive book we could find on the 
> linguistics of negation was _The Natural History of Negation_ by Horn 
>
> http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/site/1575863367.shtml 
>
> >     There is one "meaning" - a syntactically appropriate afterthought 
> >     negation of a single word.  The semantics of that negation are 
> specific 
> >     to what is being negated, but generally it is a scalar/contrary 
> >     negation 
> >     (cf. na'e) of the specific word being marked.  Sometimes the nature 
> of 
> >     the construct means that a scalar negation is effectively equivalent 
> to 
> >     a contradictory negation (cf. na) (this is especially the case for 
> >     logical connectives, by intent). 
> > 
> > 
> > I understand that on boolean scale {na'e=to'e} 
>
> na'e and to'e have nothing to do with booleans.  Boolean negation is 
> contradictory negation, which uses na. 
>
>
> Sometimes the na'e and even the to'e of a predication has the same truth 
> value as the one without the scalar.  That is not the case for 
> contradictory negation ("not the case" is a contradictory "na" negation 
> expressed in English) 
>
> >but what is {na} then? 
>
> contradictory (Boolean), not scalar 
>
> >     As a scalar negation, it is NOT the equivalent of to'e when attached 
> to 
> >     a UI, but rather na'e (generalized rather than extreme contrary 
> >     negation). 
> > 
> > 
> > na'e is {cu'i ja to'e} (grammar ingnored), isn't it? 
>
> No. 
>
> Let me concoct an example with a well-defined scale.  Perhaps I'll 
> manage this with no mistakes, being rusty. 
>
> Let us arbitrarily define any natural number (positive integers) larger 
> than 100 as "large" and any number smaller than 100 as "small".  Then 
>
> li 200 cu (je'a) barda ke rarna namcu 
> li 100 cu no'e barda ke rarna namcu 
> li 1 cu to'e barda ke rarna namcu 
> li 1 bi'i li 99 cu na'e barda ke rarna namcu 
> li za'u 1 cu na'eto'e barda ke rarna namcu 
> li ci'i cu to'eto'e barda ke rarna namcu 
>
> li 1 bi'i l00 na barda ke rarna namcu = naku zo'u li 1 bi'i l00 cu barda 
> ke rarna namcu 
> lo mlatu na barda ke rarna namcu (lo mlatu na namcu) 
>
> le cinfo cu barda ke rarna na'e namcu (emphasizing that na'e can apply 
> to the next word, and that it can be used when the "scale" is unclear to 
> mean "other-than") 
>
> "lo mlatu cu namcu" could also be marked with na'i on the entire 
> sentence, or on the words mlatu or namcu because it is 
> metalinguistically inappropriate to talk of cats as numbers. 
>
> If I had not strictly defined what "large" meant, then both of the 
> following could be true 
>
> li 200 cu barda 
> li 200 cu na'e barda 
>
> >       naicai would be the afterthought "nai"-like equivalent of 
> >     to'e when attached to UI.  That said, sometimes a scalar situation 
> >     degenerates to the point where to'e and na'e are equivalent in 
> meaning. 
> > 
> > This is not the case with some UI that have {cu'i}  as an appropriate 
> > point on the scale. 
>
> correct.  I said "sometimes" 
>
> >        The separate words exist for those situations when the scale is 
> NOT 
> >     degenerate. 
> > 
> >      > Next question is why {nai} should move to CAI and then to UI when 
> UI 
> >      > have no truth value? 
> > 
> >     It shouldn't, and I have no idea why such a thing would be proposed 
> (I 
> >     haven't read the cited proposal, and personally don't consider any 
> >     proposals until/unless formally brought before byfy - not that I 
> know 
> >     what the procedure for doing so would be these days). 
> > 
> > One more vite that it shouldn't be done. Therefore, the poll is closed. 
> > moving to CAI - may be. 
> > moving to UI - no. 
> > :) 
>
> moving at all - no 
>
> changing the language, unless things are so truly broken that the byfy 
> (i.e. Robin) can't write it up - no 
>
> (and at this point, unless Robin says so, NOTHING is subject to a vote) 
>
> I am opposed *in principle* to language change by decree at this stage. 
>   We aren't designing the language any more. 
>

Well, that ":)" was supposed to mean {zo'o}.

>
> >     They can't be so replaced, unless some proposal screws up the 
> language 
> >     in an attempt to oversimplify the negation problem.  Having multiple 
> >     words allows the semantics of each situation to resolve over time 
> with 
> >     usage evolving the way each word is interpreted. 
> > 
> > 
> > That's what I'm proposing. Separate words for different meanings. 
>
> "meaning" is itself an ambiguous term 
>
> >     Note also that nai is afterthought (like UI) while the NAhE family 
> of 
> >     words are forethought and can be used with larger constructs than a 
> >     single word. 
> > 
> > UI/CAI can be used with larger constructions, don't they? 
>
> only by using it in a way that the word that it marks is a delimiter for 
> a larger construction (generally one of the construct-terminators or one 
> of the start-construct words - e.g. fu'e bu'o ke to tu'e) and at the 
> beginning of the sentence/utterance (where it is afterthought of 
> nothing).  In those cases, the longer scope is inferred from what is 
> marked 
>
> NAhE's and NA's scope are defined by the syntax rules 
>
> -- 
> Bob LeChevalier    loj...@lojban.org <javascript:>    www.lojban.org 
> President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/tHEhjs1F43kJ.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.


------=_Part_1513_7003036.1354907464704
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

<br><br>On Friday, December 7, 2012 11:03:27 PM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">la gleki wrote:
<br>&gt; Let me see if I understand negators correctly (scheme attached in a file
<br>&gt; to this post).
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; {na'e} says that we are somewere at another point but on the same scale.
<br>
<br>On the negative side of the same scale, but not necessarily the opposite
<br>
<br>&gt; {no'e} says we are in the middle of the same scale.
<br>&gt; {to'e} says that we are at the opposite point of the same scale.
<br>&gt; {na'i} says that we are outside this scale (i.e. this predicate
<br>&gt; relationship)
<br>
<br>
<br>&gt; {na}. Here I have a problem. According to what I draw {na} means that we
<br>&gt; are not at this point of this scale and may be even outside this scale.
<br>&gt; So for me {na} is (warning! bad grammar follows) {na'i ja na'e}.
<br>
<br>na has nothing to do with scales, but rather with truth tables. &nbsp;It is 
<br>contradictory negation, and in general says that the predication without 
<br>the na is false
<br>
<br>&gt; But may be you prove me wrong (I'm not sure myself).
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; Anyway, I want all types of negation to fit on the same scheme.
<br>
<br>They can't because negation is NOT a single scheme, conceptually. &nbsp;There 
<br>is contradictory negation and contrary/scalar negation.
<br>
<br>The negation chapter of CLL goes into this at length.
<br>
<br>&gt; Last time when I draw a similar scheme I could completely solve (at
<br>&gt; least for myself) the problem of subjunctives in lojban.
<br>&gt; Now it's time for negation.
<br>
<br>You have to know the problem in order to solve the problem. &nbsp;At the time 
<br>we solved it, the most comprehensive book we could find on the 
<br>linguistics of negation was _The Natural History of Negation_ by Horn
<br>
<br><a href="http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/site/1575863367.shtml" target="_blank">http://cslipublications.<wbr>stanford.edu/site/1575863367.<wbr>shtml</a>
<br>
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; There is one "meaning" - a syntactically appropriate afterthought
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; negation of a single word. &nbsp;The semantics of that negation are specific
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; to what is being negated, but generally it is a scalar/contrary
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; negation
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; (cf. na'e) of the specific word being marked. &nbsp;Sometimes the nature of
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; the construct means that a scalar negation is effectively equivalent to
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; a contradictory negation (cf. na) (this is especially the case for
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; logical connectives, by intent).
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; I understand that on boolean scale {na'e=to'e}
<br>
<br>na'e and to'e have nothing to do with booleans. &nbsp;Boolean negation is 
<br>contradictory negation, which uses na.
<br>
<br>
<br>Sometimes the na'e and even the to'e of a predication has the same truth 
<br>value as the one without the scalar. &nbsp;That is not the case for 
<br>contradictory negation ("not the case" is a contradictory "na" negation 
<br>expressed in English)
<br>
<br>&gt;but what is {na} then?
<br>
<br>contradictory (Boolean), not scalar
<br>
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; As a scalar negation, it is NOT the equivalent of to'e when attached to
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; a UI, but rather na'e (generalized rather than extreme contrary
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; negation).
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; na'e is {cu'i ja to'e} (grammar ingnored), isn't it?
<br>
<br>No.
<br>
<br>Let me concoct an example with a well-defined scale. &nbsp;Perhaps I'll 
<br>manage this with no mistakes, being rusty.
<br>
<br>Let us arbitrarily define any natural number (positive integers) larger 
<br>than 100 as "large" and any number smaller than 100 as "small". &nbsp;Then
<br>
<br>li 200 cu (je'a) barda ke rarna namcu
<br>li 100 cu no'e barda ke rarna namcu
<br>li 1 cu to'e barda ke rarna namcu
<br>li 1 bi'i li 99 cu na'e barda ke rarna namcu
<br>li za'u 1 cu na'eto'e barda ke rarna namcu
<br>li ci'i cu to'eto'e barda ke rarna namcu
<br>
<br>li 1 bi'i l00 na barda ke rarna namcu = naku zo'u li 1 bi'i l00 cu barda 
<br>ke rarna namcu
<br>lo mlatu na barda ke rarna namcu (lo mlatu na namcu)
<br>
<br>le cinfo cu barda ke rarna na'e namcu (emphasizing that na'e can apply 
<br>to the next word, and that it can be used when the "scale" is unclear to 
<br>mean "other-than")
<br>
<br>"lo mlatu cu namcu" could also be marked with na'i on the entire 
<br>sentence, or on the words mlatu or namcu because it is 
<br>metalinguistically inappropriate to talk of cats as numbers.
<br>
<br>If I had not strictly defined what "large" meant, then both of the 
<br>following could be true
<br>
<br>li 200 cu barda
<br>li 200 cu na'e barda
<br>
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; naicai would be the afterthought "nai"-like equivalent of
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; to'e when attached to UI. &nbsp;That said, sometimes a scalar situation
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; degenerates to the point where to'e and na'e are equivalent in meaning.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; This is not the case with some UI that have {cu'i} &nbsp;as an appropriate
<br>&gt; point on the scale.
<br>
<br>correct. &nbsp;I said "sometimes"
<br>
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;The separate words exist for those situations when the scale is NOT
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; degenerate.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt; Next question is why {nai} should move to CAI and then to UI when UI
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&gt; have no truth value?
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; It shouldn't, and I have no idea why such a thing would be proposed (I
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; haven't read the cited proposal, and personally don't consider any
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; proposals until/unless formally brought before byfy - not that I know
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; what the procedure for doing so would be these days).
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; One more vite that it shouldn't be done. Therefore, the poll is closed.
<br>&gt; moving to CAI - may be.
<br>&gt; moving to UI - no.
<br>&gt; :)
<br>
<br>moving at all - no
<br>
<br>changing the language, unless things are so truly broken that the byfy 
<br>(i.e. Robin) can't write it up - no
<br>
<br>(and at this point, unless Robin says so, NOTHING is subject to a vote)
<br>
<br>I am opposed *in principle* to language change by decree at this stage. 
<br>&nbsp; We aren't designing the language any more.
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, that ":)" was supposed to mean {zo'o}.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; They can't be so replaced, unless some proposal screws up the language
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; in an attempt to oversimplify the negation problem. &nbsp;Having multiple
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; words allows the semantics of each situation to resolve over time with
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; usage evolving the way each word is interpreted.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; That's what I'm proposing. Separate words for different meanings.
<br>
<br>"meaning" is itself an ambiguous term
<br>
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; Note also that nai is afterthought (like UI) while the NAhE family of
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; words are forethought and can be used with larger constructs than a
<br>&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; single word.
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; UI/CAI can be used with larger constructions, don't they?
<br>
<br>only by using it in a way that the word that it marks is a delimiter for 
<br>a larger construction (generally one of the construct-terminators or one 
<br>of the start-construct words - e.g. fu'e bu'o ke to tu'e) and at the 
<br>beginning of the sentence/utterance (where it is afterthought of 
<br>nothing). &nbsp;In those cases, the longer scope is inferred from what is marked
<br>
<br>NAhE's and NA's scope are defined by the syntax rules
<br>
<br>-- 
<br>Bob LeChevalier &nbsp; &nbsp;<a href="javascript:" target="_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto="x-3fWAM15uoJ">loj...@lojban.org</a> &nbsp; &nbsp;<a href="http://www.lojban.org" target="_blank">www.lojban.org</a>
<br>President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
<br>
<br></blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/tHEhjs1F43kJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban-beginners/-/tHEhjs1F43kJ</a>.<br /> 
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.<br />



------=_Part_1513_7003036.1354907464704--