Received: from mail-bk0-f56.google.com ([209.85.214.56]:55558) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VjPG8-0001Nk-Qn for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:05:18 -0800 Received: by mail-bk0-f56.google.com with SMTP id na10sf44767bkb.11 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:04:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=yleyged1MO64uZrEmDHFRQVv4eve7sqZaqvLNUHIhGY=; b=SdONapbYJQkthdctx71VscGELN8lq8kBMzv8sRi82hs7+EZXwlnL5UfxaJqKtMdWh8 /By5exI+l6O0xLLklAkYNOHVWNtiD0KaRspdW7896iC6lOSXioDeXxMFYuapL/fX0EIx p0S5QkK0ViM1JEmGCzUlaqm3NiKWmpVxWsP3F83b9074sShNUoA+cDVexnhMQsuLjQ1A YkzDw64SxSIZNrx6UDO8dZlCkRIU+cE+r352YIICQGIEKf3Pu3SHz07mCShlpkrdJ2HX c5l2VBFj3S4jRK9Xj367vCC/iLpuYWo+kCPOCXSs0LwVYId8PE/3wJvGKHDkppIOPKNy ISkw== X-Received: by 10.180.11.102 with SMTP id p6mr389779wib.18.1385021099474; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:04:59 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.181.13.11 with SMTP id eu11ls227586wid.34.canary; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:04:58 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.38.72 with SMTP id e8mr16061393wik.5.1385021098761; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ci2si51449wib.3.2013.11.21.00.04.58 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d; Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id t61so3575971wes.18 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:04:58 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.76.196 with SMTP id m4mr4665653wiw.59.1385021098644; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.41.165 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 00:04:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:04:58 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] An Interesting Use for a Rafsi From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7f06975d2504ebab5aeb X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --f46d043c7f06975d2504ebab5aeb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, MorphemeAddict wrote: > I don't think the position of "na" is relevant here. > When someone says "I don't like cats", he usually means "I dislike cats". > > I like cats vs. I don't like cats (but I don't dislike them, either) vs. I > dislike cats. > > English speakers typically don't consider the middle, non-committal > option. Instead, they interpret "don't X" as "do opposite-of-X". > > Is this the "na'e" vs. "na" distinction of Lojban? > I think {na} should be compared with {na'ei} here. xorxes thought otherwise (in bpfk thread). If we agree with his stance then it's all scope those words differ in. > stevo > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Gleki Arxokuna < > gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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" 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. >> > > -- > 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. --f46d043c7f06975d2504ebab5aeb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, MorphemeAddict = <lytlesw@gmail.co= m> wrote:
I don't think the position of "na" is r= elevant here.=A0
When someone says "I don't like cats", he usually means "= ;I dislike cats".=A0

I like cats vs. I don't like cats (but I don't dislike them, either= ) vs. I dislike cats.=A0

English speakers typically don't consider the middle, non-committal opt= ion. Instead, they interpret "don't X" as "do opposite-o= f-X".=A0

Is this the &quo= t;na'e" vs. "na" distinction of Lojban?=A0


I think {na} should be compar= ed with {na'ei} here. xorxes thought otherwise (in bpfk thread). If we = agree with his stance then it's all scope those words differ in.



stevo

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Gleki Arxokun= a <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

I dont see a problem here .th= e more=A0 na is to the left the more vague the sentence becomes .

On Nov 20, 2013 9:05 PM, "Jacob Errington&q= uot; <nictytan@g= mail.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 l= o 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 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 "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 avoi= d 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 eas= y since it goes against our natural language bias. Let's compromise.
-nar- rafsi {na}

Let's semi-systematically define lujvo usin= g 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 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'e djica} in that sense doesn't make= any sense at all, as what is the polar opposite of desire is rather elusiv= e to me. Repulsion? Okay, perhaps {to'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.

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

e.g. {.i mi narju'o lo du'u lo mamta cu te v= ecnu 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}.<= 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.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail 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 &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail 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 &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail 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 &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail 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.
--f46d043c7f06975d2504ebab5aeb--