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 m0r5zfT-00005bC; Fri, 11 Nov 94 19:21 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4700; Fri, 11 Nov 94 19:21:56 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4697; Fri, 11 Nov 1994 19:21:55 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3402; Fri, 11 Nov 1994 18:18:44 +0100 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 12:08:01 EST Reply-To: bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sender: Lojban list From: bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU Subject: negation translation X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1207 Lines: 35 John Cowan is proposing a change in the interpretation of {lo} and {da poi} with negation. I do not understand his translations into English. According to his `Negation' paper, ... bridi negation has an internal form which is identical in meaning to the external form expressed by using "naku" in the prenex. ... internal bridi negation is unlke any similar negation form in natural language. ... Convert the natural language negation to an external negation ... and then proceed. ... Thus: 6) lo nanmu na klama le zarci is identical to: naku zo'u lo nanmu cu klama le zarci The translation for this prenex form is: It is false that: at least one man goes to the store. This strikes me as completely different in meaning from the translation John gave for 6): Some men don't go to the store. The translation of the prenex form tells me that no men went to the store (on the occasion, in the context); the other translation tells me that some men might have gone to the store. Robert J. Chassell bob@grackle.stockbridge.ma.us 25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725