From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Dec 22 11:49:35 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:49:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LEqmV-0004gO-3f for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:49:35 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.240]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LEqmO-0004fc-Vk for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:49:35 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so2365707rvf.46 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:49:28 -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=JSbR/AWbL/8HwUILUP8NxECneRaZN/u0XYuEcaBwnA0=; b=gOTCLI2Rbrv6XonWb0nFrjNum7KdohaMkABKQBWzDu237R9/n5gHS0pjf2PBuTRDD6 rA5nUUbkpUbPXlyHJR3V6sd9QmydrjjtI3Rqa/PH71pDhtxusRljI9XXom4eY3WvCpiT bsQ6j1zrBg+JToJduE8IePfJnmNXu1DHiBYq4= 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=bTJSqZNvfivNx3UW2jaE7zLd7k2JyrcXt6pY8OJzN/b8Sl2EOkfuOo5Pq/CHQ8KVEk X5/rNweJycqmhnpafpW9eDS0Qaeky5vpyMT3IK+hC0D1sQOj8WqGiaf06qUDbTqUyvov NBVA9WdIBYNIaLwe9kCtzQHg2fWpvFh90UIgA= Received: by 10.141.155.15 with SMTP id h15mr3336908rvo.158.1229975368186; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:49:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:49:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560812221149h1f927db3t9cfc7b644335d9cc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:49:28 -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: <96f789a60812221054g74a68527md6eff452b258385b@mail.gmail.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> <96f789a60812191055s797c629bnf7e749e17902096d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812191115n270695d3j2b072ab530895f9f@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812191145n3ef5285as8fcbfe18d0dd8e48@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812191218t57d53b49g2ca4b6cb658f6b47@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812220528s702e86tffd8fb964c4550d0@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812220557j4ea5d2baybf97c7a7e64badd9@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812220821r6be20521j7db3137e0acf4ae1@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812220909l1add6ea1p4298e5b90116ae0f@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812221054g74a68527md6eff452b258385b@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15138 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 Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > > Okay, I agree that ko'a broda naku is the same as ko'a broda (Hopefully that last bit was just a typo for "ko'a naku broda".) >(if you move > it leftwards, there is no funky qualifier or connective flipping to do (I've > never seen it at the end of a bridi, but there is no reason why it couldn't > be)). Right. In fact since that sentence has no quantifiers or connectives, all of these are equivalent: naku ko'a broda = ko'a naku broda = ko'a broda naku = ko'a na broda = naku broda fa ko'a = broda naku fa ko'a = broda fa ko'a naku There is complete freedom to shuffle things around in that particular case, since the only operator with scope is na/naku. > So if I understand you correctly, since naku is a term, on the same type > of level as, but distinct from, a sumti, it behaves the same as a sumti. It > isn't in any way part of the selbri, whereas na is part of the selbri. Is > my understanding now accurate? Sounds like it is, yes. > Assuming so, what you are then saying is > despite the fact that ko'a na broda and ko'a naku broda are superficially > similar, and (in your way of treating na) in meaning identical, they > grammatically are not the same. Correct. > Therefore, although when shifting naku > leftward from ko'a broda naku, we can say ko'a naku broda, we can't do the > same when it's part of ko'a broda naku gi'e brode. Right, the structure is completely different. But that's not anything particularly special about {naku}. You can always change {ko'a broda ko'e} to {ko'a ko'e broda}, but you can't change {ko'a broda ko'e gi'e brode} to {ko'a ko'e broda gi'e brode}, because then you would be adding "ko'e" as a term to brode that it originally didn't have. > It seems odd to me in > the same way as your comparison of "su'o da na broda" and "su'o da ge na > broda gi na broda" seemed odd to you (under my interpretation of na), but I > concede that it is indeed so. The difference is that it is easy to explain why naku cannot be moved to the "shared area" of the connected bridi: it was not shared between the two bridi to begin with. It is more difficult to understand why {na} would stop having scope over the leading terms when the selbri is connected with some other selbri. > Have I now gotten down naku? > > (BTW, I like this bit of editorializing in the CLL, which you clearly > don't agree with, indeed feel the opposite to be true: > "Clearly, if all of Lojban negation was built on ``naku'' negation instead > of ``na'' negation, logical manipulation in Lojban would be as difficult as > in natural languages." ;-) What can I say, the behaviour of {naku} is completely predictable and what what one would expect from just looking at the syntax, even before anyone gives any explanations. The behaviour of {na} is not. 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.