Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qo0OI-00005YC; Fri, 23 Sep 94 05:29 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8952; Fri, 23 Sep 94 05:28:11 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8948; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 05:28:11 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1995; Fri, 23 Sep 1994 04:26:58 +0200 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 22:30:08 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Thoughts on "any" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1235 Lines: 39 Chris Bogart: > There's something special about the arguments of djica, nitcu, claxu, sisku, > and certain commands (ko cpacu lo tanxe), that is akin to a negative. There > seems to be a negation associated with most of these concepts (mi nitcu lo > tanxe at least suggests that mi na ponse lo tanxe; ko cpacu lo tanxe is the > same way) Be careful with negation in Lojban, it is not always what it seems. mi na ponse da poi tanxe da poi tanxe na se ponse mi Both mean the same thing: It is false that: there exists a box such that I have it. To get: > There exists a box such that (I don't have it) > There is a box I don't have You can say: da poi tanxe naku se ponse mi which means the same as roda poi tanxe na se ponse mi It is false that I have every box. > In other words, the two possible interpretations caused by the combination > of the claim of existence ("da poi tanxe") and the negation ("na") in "mi na > ponse da poi lo tanxe", are disambiguated by word order, either in the main > sentence or out in the prenex. Partly true, but {na} always negates the whole claim, unless you use {naku}, for which order becomes important. Jorge