Message-Id: <m0r1LsH-00006yC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 29 Oct 1994 15:01:10 -0700
Reply-To:     "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         "John E. Clifford" <pcliffje@CRL.COM>
Subject:      mi na nu'o catra ko'a
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1266
Lines: 19

Given the _loj_ in _lojban_, which usually means at least that logically
relevant structure is explicit, it is probably a mistake to think that
_nu'o_, which is not obviously complex, is in fact complex, whatever the
gloss may say.  Apparently, Lojban divides up the the spectrum of reality
and possibility in a different way from English, with several fundamental
items where we might use only a couple and complexes.  Thus, denying one
Lojban item gives a disjunction of the other, not some simpler compound
of them and negations (though we might eventually prove a theorem of
equipollence)
But, does _na_nu'o_ in fact deny _nu'o_?  _na_ has basic sentence scope.
Presumably _nu'o_, like the tenses does too  -- or perhaps even broader,
as the tenses often do: ko'a na ba klama lo zarci rarely means "He will
never go to the store" but usually "He will not go to the store" on the
occasion we are interested in.  Logically, the tense is outside the
negation here, F not Kxz rather than not F Kxz.  So may it be with
_nu'o_. But that still means that _na_nu'o_ means something strange,
roughly "I could have avoided it but didn't" = "I didn't resist", which
is probably not what was meant.
pc>|83 Trying to be the conservative logical brake on the wheel of change.