Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22c;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDUMvOKWA9PW6aL2y8v1a__+5GwbURUX1Cd80qtj3MaLAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOQ8VDUMvOKWA9PW6aL2y8v1a__+5GwbURUX1Cd80qtj3MaLAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 09:10:05 +0400
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+grnhdyk8cJyGAbi3XFF7++mj446R18n_k0xrg8vR=HHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] An Interesting Use for a Rafsi
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: 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=f46d043749bd31e32d04eba8e9b4
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--f46d043749bd31e32d04eba8e9b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I dont see a problem here .the more  na is to the left the more vague the
sentence becomes .
On Nov 20, 2013 9:05 PM, "Jacob Errington" <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

-- 
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.

--f46d043749bd31e32d04eba8e9b4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">I dont see a problem here .the more=A0 na is to the left the=
 more vague the sentence becomes .</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Nov 20, 2013 9:05 PM, &quot;Jacob Errington&q=
uot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:nictytan@gmail.com">nictytan@gmail.com</a>&gt; w=
rote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<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 <a href=3D"mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"=
_blank">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br>
</blockquote></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 />

--f46d043749bd31e32d04eba8e9b4--