Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]:51481) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RTLna-0006KW-0v; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:00:21 -0800 Received: by ywp31 with SMTP id 31sf966917ywp.16 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:00:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results: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=CRvSRG5RRPtiUtWBeS7HoMzAakiNI+8ZAbLNM68uzWQ=; b=04SXBQY9zgj1qwn9QwspEOzZw1mRsQhN86EsyQHzKPwO3WqiHrm5I/t9nvkn2qDHNK D+gIzptrYu2R7cUvU1K0jVbtD3XknHXGPXn8D9gXtC2fdo+60xh26oWw+W3tufo/w5YS 8qrdpjwKBHkiiMpWeFK9DRhqiZbeEHIsf+2JQ= Received: by 10.236.185.231 with SMTP id u67mr2154916yhm.5.1322089204965; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:00:04 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.236.2 with SMTP id j2ls5820892anh.0.gmail; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:00:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.101.138.26 with SMTP id q26mr8157890ann.45.1322089203561; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:00:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.101.138.26 with SMTP id q26mr8157889ann.45.1322089203541; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:00:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmfepo201.cox.net (eastrmfepo201.cox.net. [68.230.241.216]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id en7si8907780vdb.1.2011.11.23.15.00.03; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:00:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.216; Received: from eastrmimpo210.cox.net ([68.230.241.225]) by eastrmfepo201.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20111123230003.WATH4752.eastrmfepo201.cox.net@eastrmimpo210.cox.net> for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:00:03 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.187.237.100]) by eastrmimpo210.cox.net with bizsmtp id 0mzy1i0052AfMYu02mzyCb; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:00:02 -0500 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020201.4ECD7AF2.00A7,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=12 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=De1JiIk2RxanYFgc+XGFICsyHMGw9Zzh53vWvxwLytc= c=1 sm=1 a=dYDkaTZZu5wA:10 a=LNyRDDSfcIoA:10 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:17 a=MJtw3bc3GUGrl-69aDYA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=fV_CuIaDw3z2mOnL:21 a=LEk-REaUAwRNYjjr:21 a=MQZuvjT3xUZLKv0gclfWMg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4ECD7A70.20109@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:57:52 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like References: <1321501066.64722.YahooMailRC@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

<1321633769.30584.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

<1321640207.88557.YahooMailRC@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

<4EC705DD.8060202@lojban.org> <4EC79CEB.8000002@lojban.org> <4EC8F072.3070501@lojban.org> <4ECC2906.1020809@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / maikxlx wrote: > Let's simplify "I want to try to pry {ka'e} from {kakne} at this > point" and translate it as {mi la'e de'u djica}. We want to say > > (0) Not necessarily: mi la'e de'u djica > > We can try > > (1) na ku ni'i ku mi la'e de'u djica > > How would you translate that? It is not the case that: something (unspecified) logically necessitates me wanting it. > To me it seems to mean "not logically > because of something, I want it." More or less the same as mine, but moving the negation away seems to imply that you want it, but the negation still applies to the who sentence. Nora suggests putting a "da" after ni'i might make this more clear (1') na ku ni'i da ku mi la'e de'u djica It is not the case that: there exists an x such that x necessitates me wanting it. >In other words I do in fact want it, In English, perhaps, but not in the Lojban. I'm a little hazy on negation scope, but I THINK (i.) ni'iku naku mi la'e di'u djica and (ii.) naku ni'iku mi la'e di'u djica differ in whether the ni'i is included in the negation and I think would be translated respectively. (i.) Logically entailed by something, it is false that I want it. (ii.) It is false that (it is logically entailed that I want it). I think that the latter approximates to your (0). I would normally do anything complex like this with explicit prenexes, so (ii.') naku ni'iku zo'u mi la'e di'u djica To indicate that you want it despite what is logically entailed, you would use ni'inai ku, with no sentence negation. (iii.) ni'inai ku mi la'e de'u djica (Despite) some logic, nevertheless I want it. It is also possible that "na'eni'i ku" would serve to negate ONLY the entailment. But na'e is a scalar negation and we haven't formally defined what exactly na'eni'i means. Best guess for this (iv.) na'eni'iku mi la'e di'u djica Other-than-logically entailed, I (still) want it. Which is still a claim that you want it, which is not (0) as I understand it. > (2) ni'i ku mi la'e de'u na ku djica > > What's that to you? > To me it's "logically (because of something), I > don't want it" which means I actually don't want it. I believe that moving the naku changes its scope with regard to existential variables, but otherwise, it still is a negation of the sentence as a whole. >>"necessarily" seems like a "therefore", which is the "se" form of the first >>four and the unmodified ja'e. "Not necessarily" would then seem to be a >>kind of negation of the therefore statement - not the nai form which has >>been defined from the JCB era as "nevertheless", but presumably the na form. >> > > If you can approximate sentence (0) in Lojban using any of BAI and SE > and {na ku}, please show me. From what I can see, you can't get modal > readings from BAI. >>Whatever word you choose, it has to be used carefully. If you attach the >>modal to the sumti "mi", you get >>"I do not necessarily want to try to pry ka'e from kakne at this point (but >>someone else might want to)." > > > Because I do not see how the basic meaning "I do not necessarily want > it" can be gotten, The basic meaning in English is ambiguous. I am inclined to think that "I want it" would be inconsistent and "I don't want it" might or might not be inconsistent. The truth of "I want it" isn't the essential claim. Perhaps the real problem is that the main selbri is wrong. (ii.'') na nibli lenu mi la'e de'u djica seems more straightforward to achieve your (0). Nora observes that nibli/ni'i may not be the right concept for "necessarily" as you use it in (0). > I see even less how the inherence "but someone else > might want it" can be gotten. Change the English emphasis and it becomes more obvious. "**I** do not necessarily want it" or "I don't necessarily want it to rain this weekend, (but the farmer who is facing crop loss from drought certainly does want it to rain)." lojbab -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.