From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Dec 17 14:29:33 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:29:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LD4tZ-0002yp-A9 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:29:33 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.240]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LD4tW-0002yF-V9 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:29:33 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so129898rvf.46 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:29:30 -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:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=HxhKIEfzaUWFNxU2rHa5t4Vj19jxzGnUeWMI0YnetCo=; b=VY7BLDbSMYAbZrg3RL2ECI7j6uiZ3mZf6wOEVyCLfcDg19SCj+kG7I7y9QZTgc8K4u JuDp+eMZgOI2LSWKvT2C6BjSqR3y8ObZRERCl5ZqKIs3ChIFo+KLdrI6ZQ7PtMrnUOGv U2weFw6gGicr9h6piTQdwlpdeyxmXpUpnJpVo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=dHVReWbCNTrXwC9Cf6Xc98x41gyvN+hiBFtFKrpeNKiWTc92SfSxYMUcNha4DKb38P SkKRsbkjRZ89WXWm7nrKk1k0pizrBiOa+gRM8l1O947FxeKnVfgwE08WU45vQ2jTPCBY ySqagiX7hm0hFFEtc8y8ecV6ow8VdCuYENj7k= Received: by 10.141.63.20 with SMTP id q20mr619229rvk.106.1229552969966; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:29:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:29:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560812171429j1e9f7202r4381bbd7e063b19e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:29:29 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators In-Reply-To: <101615.13333.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <101615.13333.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15110 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Here is a hopefully more clear restatement of the problem. Given {su'o da na broda gi'e na brode}, we can rewrite it in purely prenex form as follows: su'o da zo'u ge na ku zo'u da broda gi na ku zo'u de broda "There is some x which is neither broda nor brode." Applying De Morgan's laws, we can move the negation through "ge", changing it to "ga", and then through "su'o", changing it to "ro": na ku ro da zo'u ga da broda gi da brode "Not every x is broda or brode." So far so good. I doubt anyone objecs to any of that. The original "na"s can't be taken to have scope over "su'o" because "gi'e" will block them. Now let's consider just {su'o da na broda}. The obvious prenex rewriting, if we hadn't read of any special rule, is: su'o da zo'u na ku zo'u da broda "There is some x which is not broda." na ku ro da zo'u da broda "Not every x is broda." which pretty much would agree with the case with "gi'e". But for some inexplicable reason, the official rule is that in this case "na" jumps over "su'o" without changing it, and "su'o da na broda" has to be read as "no x is a broda". The special scope rule for "na" is not applicable in general, so why have it at all? Just to make things complicated? mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.