Message-Id: <m0rIHU1-00007DC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Thu, 15 Dec 1994 09:45:11 -0500
Reply-To:     "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: plural
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  <199412150638.BAA00149@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Logical
              Language Group on Thu, 15 Dec 1994 01:37:49 -0500)
Content-Length: 2512
Lines: 72

>From: bob@gnu.ai.mit.edu
>Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 22:23:04 est
>To: shoulson@shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu
>Subject: Re: negation with go'i

>Mostly, Lojban deals with double negatives as you would expect with
>logic; i.e., not negative is positive.  However, negation with go'i is
>different, to make it easier to understand the speaker's intent:
>
>According to the negation paper:

>    On Lojban Negation
>    $Revision: 2.3 $

>     ...

>    If you say:
>
>    14.3)   na go'i
>
>    the question arises as to whether this creates a double negative
>    in the sentence by adding a new "na" to the one already there
>    (forming a double negative and hence a positive statement), or
>    whether the "na" replaces the previous one, leaving the sentence
>    unchanged.
>
>    It was decided that substitution is the preferable choice, since
>    it is then clear whether we intend a positive or a negative
>    sentence without performing any manipulation.  This is the way
>    English usually works, but not all languages work this way.

And yet, Lojbab says:

>Date:         Thu, 15 Dec 1994 01:37:49 -0500
>From: Logical Language Group <lojbab%ACCESS.DIGEX.NET@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>X-To:         shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU
>X-cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu

>>>A more valid comparison would be with na/ja'a. If none is given explicitly,
>>>>ja'a is the default one.
>>
>>>na go'i .i go'i .i go'i
>>
>>>No I did not contradict myself.  "na" carried over as implict to the go'i.
>>>My son and I get into nago'i/ja'ago'i arguments all the time - one little
>>>bit of Lojban he knows well.
>>
>>Wait, no... I specifically remmeber from years back that "na go'i" in
>>--More--
>>response to a negative jufra is *not* contradiction.  It confused me then,
>>but I was told that it was important.  I'm confused; I'm going to find that
>>reference... I could swear I recall it from John Cowan or something.  Is it
>>tackled in the negation paper?  Will repost when I find what I meant.
>>
>>~mark

>In the above example
>>>na go'i .i go'i .i go'i
>means identically the same thing as
>  na go'i .i na go'i .i na go'i

>The "na" gets carried over, just like any sumti, until explicitly replaced
>by a different value, i.e. "ja'a"

So which is correct?  "na" is not a sumti in this sentence, I thought.  It
would be if it were stated as "naku go'i", in which case perhaps it would
get carried over?  But the negation paper says it isn't carried over
normally.  Whom should we believe here?

>lojbab

~mark