From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Dec 17 05:48:54 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LCwli-00078Q-6r for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:48:54 -0800 Received: from mail-bw0-f12.google.com ([209.85.218.12]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LCwlc-00076p-Ri for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:48:54 -0800 Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so6959127bwz.10 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:48:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender :to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references :x-google-sender-auth; bh=OSWC8WhqPCw0ccZJ6H309VWPN15grbWcSNIKTaBCH8M=; b=wYpoaYLER/NT4P7AsWOPoRC6Snx/DAOM8UvmMm64LGqQ4e9puBEkfjRqyi/J58Z9Mx 3Rm88gmJVXGvbD1wy7Gff6BRFR6E0cp1JlO2cjWwbJ0WzWTt3HkrPjRBXtD+c3cU5xuR JLzsrhV/sQiGa6e+essc1CzJzXc0EubqJbh2E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references:x-google-sender-auth; b=Z0vqN49/LVopSLEQVRp6TKtsrnEC1Klg3stNHnHDgl1i5sq9NL++sbtjnx1zWkO9lN FY/o3PoWfcbr3+w6j1vQUFWPifNYR+fNkTzHqWfQVNZLGXBDC+P2tlhi5JH56UGiR39k cPTn4Y4dcPSi78SnDBuqOzuUQQPBSkLAC2K08= Received: by 10.223.105.140 with SMTP id t12mr566082fao.12.1229521518813; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:45:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.105.80 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:45:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:45:18 +0100 From: "Daniel Brockman" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators In-Reply-To: <925d17560812170521l25cd32bar964ae19c64a6c2d8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <70697fa40812152124u39a177a2hc52d604e9a30e469@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812160908j49f6d818y1fdcdf21bfddfb28@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812161137u6919c05cyf5958e9949ccfaf7@mail.gmail.com> <200812161859.52969.phma@phma.optus.nu> <925d17560812161637y2caa5a41i32372fc376cf603a@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812170455k54431b6tfe69c2f528bed595@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812170521l25cd32bar964ae19c64a6c2d8@mail.gmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 651ac19199902859 X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15106 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: daniel@gointeractive.se Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list >> Suffice it to say that while the use of na is >> well-defined in simple bridi, its meaning in very complicated sentence with >> both existential qualifiers and bridi tails is not well-defined. > > If {su'o da na broda gi'e brode} counts as a "very complicated > sentence", then the characterization of Lojban as "spoken predicate > logic" is almost a sham. The relative scopes of quantifiers, logical > connectives and negation should be very straightforward. Spontaneous thoughts: Since {su'o da broda gi'e na brode} ought (?) to mean {su'o da broda gi'e nai brode}, then {su'o da na broda gi'e brode} ought to mean {su'o da broda na gi'e brode}. That would be consistent with e.g. {su'o da ca broda gi'e brode} meaning {su'o da ca broda .i je da brode} (which I assume it does?). Of course the scoping of {na} is a controversial issue; I'm just thinking out loud and I haven't followed the discussion on lojban-beginners. One can always say {su'o da na ge broda gi brode} to mean the other thing. -- Daniel Brockman daniel@brockman.se To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.