On Fri, Dec 7= , 2012 at 1:19 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>= wrote:

{na'e} is definitely not "in the mi= ddle or on the opposite end", it is just somewhere on the scale that i= sn't the point being tagged. Note that the scale needn't even be 1 = dimensional, which is one reason why {to'e}, {no'e} etc. needn'= t make sense even when {na'e} does.

{na}, unlike everything else, is taken straightforwardly from logic; th= ere are no questions about what it means, and it is orthogonal to both {na&= #39;i} and {na'e}. The only possible issue with {na} is the dispute as = to how its scope works. CLL considers selbri-na to be equivalent to bridi-i= nitial naku; standard idiom seems to consider selbri-na to be equivalent to= naku in the exact position of the na. In situations where any confusion mi= ght arise I prefer to avoid selbri-na for this reason, using explicit naku = or {na'ei} instead.

mu'o mi'e la latro'a

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:37 AM, la glek= i <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

Let me see if I understand negator= s correctly (scheme attached in a file to this post).

{na'e} says that we are somewere at another point but on= the same scale.
{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 sc= ale.

{na'i} says that we are outside this scale (i.e. this predicate re= lationship)
{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 out= side this scale.

So for me {na} is (warning! bad grammar follows) {na'i ja na'e= }.

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.

Last time when I draw a similar scheme I could completely solve (at le= ast for myself) the problem of subjunctives in lojban.
Now it'= ;s time for negation.

On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:28:51 AM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:
I think this is more appropriate for the main list.=A0

la gleki wrot= e:=A0
> Even the current grammar has two meanings of {nai}.=A0
>= ; Such "polysemy" (although lacking ambiguity in any case) might = lead to=A0
> inconvenience for newbies.=A0
> Why {nai} actually means=A0
&= gt; 1. to'e (UInai)=A0
> 2. na (NU NAI =3D NU NA KU ZOhU, the sam= e with connectives and BAI)?=A0
>=A0
> The proposal=A0http://ww= w.lojban.org/tiki/Move+NAI+to+CAI=A0adds the third=A0
> meaning (na'e).=A0

There is one "meaning" - a syn= tactically appropriate afterthought=A0
negation of a single word. =A0The= semantics of that negation are specific=A0
to what is being negated, bu= t generally it is a scalar/contrary negation=A0
(cf. na'e) of the specific word being marked. =A0Sometimes the nature o= f=A0
the construct means that a scalar negation is effectively equivalen= t to=A0
a contradictory negation (cf. na) (this is especially the case f= or=A0
logical connectives, by intent).

I understa= nd that on boolean scale {na'e=3Dto'e} =A0but what is {na} then?

As a scalar negation, it is NOT the equivalent of to'e when att= ached to=A0
a UI, but rather na'e (generalized rather than extreme c= ontrary=A0
negation).

na'= ;e is {cu'i ja to'e} (grammar ignored), isn't it?

=A0naicai would be the afterthoug= ht "nai"-like equivalent of=A0
to'e when attached to UI. =A0That said, sometimes a scalar situation=A0=
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} =A0as an appropriate point on the scale.

=A0 The separate words exist for those situations when= the scale is NOT=A0
degenerate.=A0

> Next question is why {nai} should move to CAI an= d then to UI when UI=A0
> have no truth value?=A0

It shouldn&#= 39;t, and I have no idea why such a thing would be proposed (I=A0
haven&= #39;t read the cited proposal, and personally don't consider any=A0
proposals until/unless formally brought before byfy - not that I know=A0what the procedure for doing so would be these days).=A0
<= div>
One more vite that it shouldn't be done. Therefore, = the poll is closed.

moving to CAI - may be.
moving to UI - no.
:)

We specifically considered that when solving the negation problem. =A0M= ost=A0
languages have oversimplified and degenerate forms of negation (p= robably=A0
because logical complexity is "inconvenient for newbies&= quot;). =A0TLI Loglan=A0
does so. =A0Lojban specifically tried to improve on that situation.=A0
<= br>> If so why having {to'e}, {no'e} and {na'e} and if they = can be always=A0
> optionally replaced with {nai}, {cu'i} and som= e experimental cmavo (e.g.=A0
> {ne'e}) correspondingly?=A0

They can't be so replaced, = unless some proposal screws up the language=A0
in an attempt to oversimp= lify the negation problem. =A0Having multiple=A0
words allows the semant= ics of each situation to resolve over time with=A0
usage evolving the way each word is interpreted.=A0
That's what I'm proposing. Separate words for differen= t meanings.
=A0

Note also that nai is afterthought (like UI) while the NAhE family of= =A0
words are forethought and can be used with larger constructs than a= =A0
single word.=A0

UI/CAI can be us= ed with larger constructions, don't they?=A0

lojbab=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com= /d/msg/lojban/-/3mwxUYZC6TUJ.
=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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.