From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 18 13:29:13 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:29:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LDQQj-0002d4-LS for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:29:13 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.248]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LDQQg-0002cR-VD for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:29:13 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so661581rvf.46 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:29:09 -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=lt2+0vrYLV7mjrLZ66qgwGXogpU7h9KuDEVcFUfEWdU=; b=k/Ny8Ib0JsSWNoacQSBbUW1uPPfkyiamMqG793SD9Is+nOCa7KdWekB/dPkiXS8Cgx NpypxAIVUJipaGrAOmI979brvOFJ3rJ6xoQL5n5fcYaChjSDYwc1nLaNQdyILrNCRHQ1 923lsE3DSmmMLXTBUPxmCfVZ+2jh+06Cl8ybo= 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=rz2+AtiSPVYTzWOJ2B6qRPg5+rveDSMBJLHrEpSzK4J+fmSKAic6gqLWelmdU7xuUA y1rJFMx+oz7qYn/T5QtejhSiBVzVI0hgFbA4b5FNw16VmhKzJ5bkHZ1rA1JZXMebqg8z WhsMWBjkZbIoPP08BJGep39Ujz7llJoRGzBA0= Received: by 10.140.188.19 with SMTP id l19mr1200221rvf.51.1229635749894; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:29:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:29:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560812181329y69bf5672of028ac125047536d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 18:29:09 -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: <96f789a60812181220tfb3d6c3k56b01d844f9e4075@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <101615.13333.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560812171429j1e9f7202r4381bbd7e063b19e@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812181220tfb3d6c3k56b01d844f9e4075@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15115 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 On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Jorge Llambías > wrote: >> >> Now let's consider just {su'o da na broda}. The obvious prenex >> rewriting, if we hadn't read of any special rule, is: > > That last sentence sets up an interesting straw man -- First, it uses a > word, "obvious". Obvious to whom? To those who expect na to behave the > same as naku? No, I mean obvious from looking at the parse tree, without preconceptions. Syntactically {na} is part of the bridi tail, and it is not, in general, the operator of the bridi-tail with widest scope. So in general the scope of {na} is already conditioned by the other operators in the bridi-tail and cannot be changed. Only in the very special case when {na} has widest scope over the bridi-tail can the issue even arise of giving it even wider scope than just its natural scope over the bridi-tail. And no justiication is ever given for that move. > No generic statements about obviousness can be made with regard to lojban, > especially if one encounters na as their first negation. Which, if you read > the CLL through as your first exposure to lojban, as I did, is in fact what > happens. The "naku" comes a whole chapter later. And how is it first > encountered? By saying that a bridi that includes a na can be rewritten as > a prenex with "naku" all the way on the left, and then proceeds to explain > how to move it around etc. So to me, the use of "na" as described in CLL is > natural, and the way want to rewrite it is unnatural. Yes, I understand that. That's how CLL presents it. But without that arbitrary rule, which may seem natural to you because it's how {na} was introduced to you, there is nothing natural about it. The other interpretation is what follows naturally when no violence is done to the formal grammar. > So it's not that the na "jumps the su'o". It's that na is defined that > way, and naku is a special subcase of na that works quite differently. {naku} is not relevant to the issue. Fortunately there is no disagrement about the scope of {naku} which agrees with what can be read from the parse tree and thus can't cause problems. > I'd've personally been a lot happier if they had created an entirely > different cmavo for "naku" rather than modifying na in a way that is > counterintuitive to the way it normally works (or the way things like > tense+KU works, for example). If they had a completely different cmavo, I > doubt we'd be having this argument. I don't think you are adressing the argument I'm giving, which has nothing to do with {naku}. Compare: (1) su'o da na broda (2) su'o da ge na broda gi na brode There's no {naku} in sight. (2) cannot mean anything other than "some x is neither broda nor brode". It is unnatural for (1) comparing it with (2), to mean something other than "some x is not broda". Even better, compare (1) with: (3) su'o da ge na broda gi na broda This can only mean "some x is not broda and is not broda", which reduces to "some x is not broda". 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.