Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]:56245) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RTQlL-0007Pb-Q6; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:18:22 -0800 Received: by ywp31 with SMTP id 31sf1129389ywp.16 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:18:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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=oeZypB0iF5gG7kvh3z4+WtUSV4qzN8V6cnjOWkLHVZQ=; b=u9kidXJ27mFWVbfV0jMG0VkWBBlgas8CxWJSb22yx9zcSNyG8xX709wdKgRXDhNppG 8gvb0PPzYc9UBJoqsXK6ZCd8MumFeLYcBraVFRji9YBfglR77b7P0UdP6yZ2h1gFn0rl +50caT316i92fXePvcQa+HALkuWqMyQfd+5Ec= Received: by 10.236.200.161 with SMTP id z21mr2705546yhn.2.1322108286803; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:18:06 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.41.17 with SMTP id o17ls1012919ybo.2.gmail; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.175.225 with SMTP id z61mr46237587yhl.9.1322108285190; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.175.225 with SMTP id z61mr46237586yhl.9.1322108285177; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f182.google.com (mail-gx0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e24si4793561ybi.3.2011.11.23.20.18.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.182 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.182; Received: by mail-gx0-f182.google.com with SMTP id k5so3002599ggn.13 for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:18:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.57.33 with SMTP id f1mr13733713pbq.104.1322108284865; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:18:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.224.8 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:18:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4ECD7A70.20109@lojban.org> 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> <4ECD7A70.20109@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:18:04 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like From: maikxlx To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: maikxlx@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.182 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=maikxlx@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com 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 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > 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. > I agree with your translation, as I indicated in a followup email. > 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. > Yes, I think {da} helps make it clearer. > In English, perhaps, but not in the Lojban. > Right. The English "I don't want it by logical necessity" and similar sentences are often ambiguous. > 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 > [i.e. basically my (2) and (1) respectively] > 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 agree with the gist of these, but I think that the translation that you gave for (ii) could also be a translation of (1') with {da}: (1') na ku ni'i da ku mi la'e de'u djica "It is false that there is one or more things that logically entail that I want it" "It is false that it is logically entailed that I want it." With implicit {zo'e} I fear you might get a different result. > I think that the latter approximates to your (0). > I am unsure that (1)/(ii) with {ni'i [zo'e] ku} is a good enough approximation. At first glance, Nora's (1') with {ni'i da ku} could work. But there are issues. Consider this example: (3) Necessarily: ro nanmu je se mensi cu bruna This has "necessarily", without the "not". Dropping the {na ku} as used in (0), the {ni'i da ku} solution gives us: (3') ni'i da ku ro nanmu je se mensi ne'e bruna "There exists an x such that x necessitates that all men with sisters are brothers." "Something necessitates that all men with sisters are brothers." That _is_ arguably an approximation, but not really what we want to say. It gets even clumsier when you try to express "possibly". Note that in modal logic, "possibly" is interchangeable with "not necessarily not". Taking advantage of this: (4) Possibly: ko'a bruna. "He is possibly a brother". (4') na ku ni'i da ku na ku ko'a bruna "It is false that there exists an x such that x necessitates that he is not a brother." That also is not _really_ what you want to say. > 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. > I follow, and agree that neither {nai} nor {na'e} get you (0). > Perhaps the real problem is that the main selbri is wrong. > > (ii.'') na nibli lenu mi la'e de'u djica > I'd put {da} at the front to be clear, but other than that I don't see how it's different than the {ni'i} version. "It's false that something necessitates that I want it." > 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 think Nora may be right. Entailment is not the same as modal necessity and using {ni'i} to express the latter is at best a kludge. > >> 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" > Yes, but wouldn't {ba'e} be needed to achieve this kind of emphasis in Lojban? > lojbab > mu'o mi'e .maik. -- 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.