Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.18;
Message-ID: <528CF9F4.3060901@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:05:40 +0100
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] An Interesting Use for a Rafsi
References: <CAOQ8VDUMvOKWA9PW6aL2y8v1a__+5GwbURUX1Cd80qtj3MaLAw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDUMvOKWA9PW6aL2y8v1a__+5GwbURUX1Cd80qtj3MaLAw@mail.gmail.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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la tsani cu cusku di'e
> 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}.

This seems to me to be the same as {narfaubo'e}:

narfaubo'e -> brode FA lo su'u na fasnu fa ...

    (1) mi narfaudji lo nu do farlu
        "I want you not to fall." ("I want your fall not to happen")

And then I suppose another for predications:

narje'ubo'e -> brode FA lo su'u na jetnu fa ...

Though this one seems less useful when paired with {djica}. It works 
well with other jvotertau, however.

> 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."

Here, {narje'uju'o} *would* work:

    (2) mi narje'uju'o lo du'u lo mamta cu te vecnu lo cidja
        "I know that "Mom bought food" is not true."

(sounds much like {jifyju'o}!)

> 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}.

This seems reasonable.

> 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 won't make a judgement yet, but I'm worried it might be confusing. It 
also seems as though the same can be achieved through {narfau-} and 
{narje'u-}/{jif-}, but an argument could perhaps be made that {nar-} 
would make a good generalized abbreviation of those.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
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.