Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.13.138.119 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of me@v4hn.de) client-ip=85.13.138.119;
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:41:32 +0100
From: v4hn <me@v4hn.de>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] An Interesting Use for a Rafsi
Message-ID: <20131121134132.GU13501@samsa.fritz.box>
References: <CAOQ8VDUMvOKWA9PW6aL2y8v1a__+5GwbURUX1Cd80qtj3MaLAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+grnhdyk8cJyGAbi3XFF7++mj446R18n_k0xrg8vR=HHQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHiXx=Ndgi=u52UO4KQXeL_ZxFeVv+x_QuQkq7gkX9dLbLZ5vA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7bV+imoia0i2btgXh6Z8NPfhVfnqKd_6KGprL3FrCS7HzEcA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Cou6PmgoyP0+llr2"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+imoia0i2btgXh6Z8NPfhVfnqKd_6KGprL3FrCS7HzEcA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--Cou6PmgoyP0+llr2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:04:58PM +0400, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 would like to think that's the difference between {na} and {to'e}.
{na'e} implies a scale, but most of the time that scale is independent of
truth values: {mi na'e nelci lo mlatu} in many contexts probably implies
{mi nelci lo drata danlu} but not {mi to'e nelci lo mlatu}.

> 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.

Yay, one more experimental word in the discussion.

Ilmen even explained it on IRC as lu .i zo na'ei smuni simsa zo na li'u

To me it seems to be much closer to {to'e} than {na} though..
Could you explain the problem this proposed word solves and
the difference to {na} and {to'e} (in the best case by example)?
Otherwise I don't get what you are trying to say.

I like what gleki wrote about this:

> > 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.

So in practice this is malglico and you should watch your tongue,
but it's no problem really..


Concerning {narbroda}: I can't really say I like it but I see the benefits.
It moves quite a bit of logical structure to the lexicon and one advantage
of lojban is that this structure is easy to access without the lexicon.


mi'e la .van. mu'o

--Cou6PmgoyP0+llr2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlKODYwACgkQMBKLZs4+wjz+2ACgrT0+xREDYYiY5AyUF44gqtLu
fZkAoIIYHlUnbcKN05TuYKPdaN62t78s
=u2AM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Cou6PmgoyP0+llr2--