Lordy, where is that = solution for subjunctives. I'd love to see that!

From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
= Sent: Friday, December 7, = 2012 3:37 AM
Subject: = [lojban] polysemy of {nai}

Let me see if I understand negators correctly (sc= heme 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 a= re in the middle of the same scale.

{to'e} says that we are at th= e opposite point of the same scale.

{na'i} says that we are outsi= de this scale (i.e. this predicate relationship)

{na}. Here I hav= e a problem. According to what I draw {na} means that we are not at this po= int of this scale and may be even outside this scale.

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

<= div>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 solv= e (at least 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.

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

There is one "m= eaning" - 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 natu= re of
the construct means that a scalar negation is effectively eq= uivalent to
a contradictory negation (cf. na) (this is especially = the case for
logical connectives, by intent).
I understand 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&nb= sp;
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 the afterthought "nai"-like equivalent of&nbs= p;
to'e when attached to UI. That said, sometimes a scalar situati= on
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.

The separate words exist for those situa= tions when the scale is NOT
degenerate.

> Next que= stion 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 suc= h a thing would be proposed (I
haven't read the cited proposal, an= d personally don't consider any
proposals until/unless formally br= ought before byfy - not that I know
what the procedure for doing s= o would be these days).

One more = vite that it shouldn't be done. Therefore, the poll is closed.
mo= ving to CAI - may be.
moving to UI - no.
:)
<= br>

We specifically considered th= at when solving the negation problem. Most
languages have ov= ersimplified and degenerate forms of negation (probably
because lo= gical complexity is "inconvenient for newbies"). TLI Loglan
does so. Lojban specifically tried to improve on tha= t situation.

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

They can't be so replaced, unless some proposal screws up the= language
in an attempt to oversimplify the negation problem. &nbs= p;Having multiple
words allows the semantics of each situation to = resolve over time with
usage evolving the way each word is interpr= eted.

That's what I'm proposing. = Separate words for different meanings.

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

UI/CAI can be used with larger constructions, don't they?&= nbsp;

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/-/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/lojban= ?hl=3Den.