Now it's time for negation.<= /div>

On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:28:51 AM UTC+4, lojbab wro= te:

I think this is more appropriate for the ma= in list.

la gleki wrote:
> Even the current gramma= r has two meanings of {nai}.
> Such "polysemy" (although lackin= g ambiguity in any case) might lead to
> inconvenience for newb= ies.
> Why {nai} actually means
> 1. to'e (UInai)&n= bsp;
> 2. na (NU NAI =3D NU NA KU ZOhU, the same with connectives and= BAI)?
>
> The proposal http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Move+NAI+to+CAI adds the third&= nbsp;
> meaning (na'e).

There is one "meaning" - a synta= ctically appropriate afterthought
negation of a single word. = ;The semantics of that negation are specific
to what is being nega= ted, 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 <= br>logical connectives, by intent).

I under= stand that on boolean scale {na'e=3Dto'e} but what is {na} then?

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 ignored), isn't it= ?

naicai would be th= e afterthought "nai"-like equivalent of
to'e when attached to UI. = That said, sometimes a scalar situation
degenerates to the p= oint where to'e and na'e are equivalent in meaning.

This is not the case with some UI that have {cu'i} as an app= ropriate point on the scale.

= The separate words exist for those situations when the scale is NOT <= br>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&nbs= p;
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. The= refore, the poll is closed.
moving to CAI - may be.
mov= ing to UI - no.
:)

We specifically considered that when solving the negation problem. &= nbsp;Most
languages have oversimplified and degenerate forms of ne= gation (probably
because logical complexity is "inconvenient for n= ewbies"). TLI Loglan
does so. Lojban specifically trie= d to improve on that situation.

> If so why having {to'e}, = {no'e} and {na'e} and if they can be always
> optionally replac= ed with {nai}, {cu'i} and some experimental cmavo (e.g.
> {ne'e= }) correspondingly?

They can't be so replaced, unless some pro= posal screws up the language
in an attempt to oversimplify the neg= ation problem. Having multiple
words allows the semantics of= each situation to resolve over time with
usage evolving the way e= ach word is interpreted.

That's w= hat I'm proposing. Separate words for different meanings.
<= /div>

Note also that nai is afterthought (l= ike 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?

lojbab

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/3m= wxUYZC6TUJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
------=_Part_1290_11642058.1354873045342--