Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:04:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOQ8VDUMvOKWA9PW6aL2y8v1a__+5GwbURUX1Cd80qtj3MaLAw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] An Interesting Use for a Rafsi
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01293f1077117704eb9ec886
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--089e01293f1077117704eb9ec886
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I first pondered this idea when I noticed that many of us say {.i mi na
djica lo nu broda}, when really we mean to say {.i mi djica lo nu na
broda}. Let's suppose I have a child whom I want to be in good health,
etc., as I should. Then, if that child is playing some dangerous game in
which he or she might fall, then I should say {.i mi djica lo nu do na
farlu}, as I do indeed desire something, namely that they not fall. Saying
that I "don't want them to fall" isn't really accurate. I don't want them
to fall, sure, but what *do* I want? I want them to not fall. I would find
myself led to say {.i mi na djica ...} in Lojban due to this malglico
influence, but I think that we should do our best to avoid it.

Rather than speak in negations like this on top level, it would be more
accurate to move the negation into the abstraction. But that's not easy
since it goes against our natural language bias. Let's compromise.

-nar- rafsi {na}

Let's semi-systematically define lujvo using this rafsi as follows.

narbo'e -> brode FA lo su'u naku zo'u ...

Therefore, {nardji lo nu do farlu} means {.i mi djica lo nu naku do farlu},
which is more accurately representative of my actual desires than to say
{.i mi na djica lo nu do farlu}.

I have noticed that some lojbanists use {to'e} or perhaps another NAhE for
this purpose. I think that this usage is overall inconsistent with the main
uses of NAhE, since these cnavo are intended to modify the semantics of the
following selbri. {to'e djica} in that sense doesn't make any sense at all,
as what is the polar opposite of desire is rather elusive to me. Repulsion?
Okay, perhaps {to'e djica} is fine then. But it requires in some sense that
the listener and the speaker agree on the scales at hand. Therefore the
NAhE solution works only provided such an agreement, whereas the -nar-
solution functions independently of those semantic agreements.

The -nar- scheme can be applied to other brivla as well giving us
interesting results.

e.g. {.i mi narju'o lo du'u lo mamta cu te vecnu lo cidja} "I know that mom
didn't buy food."

In the event that the selbri on the right of -nar- contains no
abstractions, then we assume to obvious interpretation of -nar- which is to
negate only the selbri, otherwise done by performing a bridi-final negation.

e.g. {.i mi nardu'a lo plise do} -> {.i mi dunda lo plise do naku}.

All in all, I think that this is a very powerful tool, not to mention that
it allows is to modify the internal semantics of an abstraction from the
outside, which is generally not possible.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--089e01293f1077117704eb9ec886
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I first pondered this idea when I noticed that many of us =
say {.i mi na djica lo nu broda}, when really we mean to say {.i mi djica l=
o nu na broda}. Let&#39;s suppose I have a child whom I want to be in good =
health, etc., as I should. Then, if that child is playing some dangerous ga=
me in which he or she might fall, then I should say {.i mi djica lo nu do n=
a farlu}, as I do indeed desire something, namely that they not fall. Sayin=
g that I &quot;don&#39;t want them to fall&quot; isn&#39;t really accurate.=
 I don&#39;t want them to fall, sure, but what *do* I want? I want them to =
not fall. I would find myself led to say {.i mi na djica ...} in Lojban due=
 to this malglico influence, but I think that we should do our best to avoi=
d it.<br>

<br>Rather than speak in negations like this on top level, it would be more=
 accurate to move the negation into the abstraction. But that&#39;s not eas=
y since it goes against our natural language bias. Let&#39;s compromise. <b=
r>

<br>-nar- rafsi {na}<br><br>Let&#39;s semi-systematically define lujvo usin=
g this rafsi as follows.<br><br>narbo&#39;e -&gt; brode FA lo su&#39;u naku=
 zo&#39;u ...<br><br>Therefore, {nardji lo nu do farlu} means {.i mi djica =
lo nu naku do farlu}, which is more accurately representative of my actual =
desires than to say {.i mi na djica lo nu do farlu}.<br>

<br>I have noticed that some lojbanists use {to&#39;e} or perhaps another N=
AhE for this purpose. I think that this usage is overall inconsistent with =
the main uses of NAhE, since these cnavo are intended to modify the semanti=
cs of the following selbri. {to&#39;e djica} in that sense doesn&#39;t make=
 any sense at all, as what is the polar opposite of desire is rather elusiv=
e to me. Repulsion? Okay, perhaps {to&#39;e djica} is fine then. But it req=
uires in some sense that the listener and the speaker agree on the scales a=
t hand. Therefore the NAhE solution works only provided such an agreement, =
whereas the -nar- solution functions independently of those semantic agreem=
ents.<br>

<br>The -nar- scheme can be applied to other brivla as well giving us inter=
esting results.<br><br>e.g. {.i mi narju&#39;o lo du&#39;u lo mamta cu te v=
ecnu lo cidja} &quot;I know that mom didn&#39;t buy food.&quot; <br><br>

In the event that the selbri on the right of -nar- contains no abstractions=
, then we assume to obvious interpretation of -nar- which is to negate only=
 the selbri, otherwise done by performing a bridi-final negation.<br><br>

e.g. {.i mi nardu&#39;a lo plise do} -&gt; {.i mi dunda lo plise do naku}.<=
br><br>All in all, I think that this is a very powerful tool, not to mentio=
n that it allows is to modify the internal semantics of an abstraction from=
 the outside, which is generally not possible.<br>

<br>.i mi&#39;e la tsani mu&#39;o<br></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--089e01293f1077117704eb9ec886--