Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sBVOH-0009acC; Wed, 17 May 95 01:47 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0sBVOH-0009acC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 2EBC102D ; Wed, 17 May 1995 0:46:59 +0100
Date:         Tue, 16 May 1995 18:47:46 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: TECH: Negation
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1904
Lines: 69

Dylan says:

> In another message, jorge@phyast.pitt.edu wrote:
>  > ...
>  > i na srana loi na'e remna prenu e loi remna na'e prenu
>  > ...
>
> meaning (from context) "It is not the case that what is relevant is
> people that are other-than-human and it is not the case that what is
> relevant is humans that are other-than-people."

That's what I meant. I should have writen {a} instead of {e}.

> I found this very odd and went and checked the negation paper.  It
> seems to be correct.

I think it's not correct. Does the negation paper really say it is?
In any case, the De Morgan's laws part of the paper is not really
very trustworthy, I think.


> But this got me to thinking (always a dangerous
> thing...)
>
> Suppose {le cukta} consists of {le xunre cukta} and {le nukni cukta}
> (each of which are just one book).  Consider
>
>       mi jbera le cukta .i na go'i
>
> and
>
>       mi jbera le xunre cukte .e le nukni cukta .i na go'i
>
> The second sentence of the first one expands to {mi na jbera le
> cukta}: "It is not the case that I borrow the books"--so I might
> borrow one of the two.

Right.

> But the second one expands to {mi na jbera le
> xunre cukta .ije mi na jbera le nukni cukti}: so I don't borrow either
> of the books.

No, it should expand to {ija}. The negation should have wider scope
than the conjunction.

>
> I find this very counterintuitive.  What, then, is the meaning of {le
> cukta} in terms of {le xunre cukta} and {le nukni cukta}?

I think {le cukta} is, as you intuit, {le xunre cukta .e le nukni cukta}

>
> And is it really true that {na go'i} is sometimes stronger than a
> direct negation of the statement just made?

No, the direct negation is equally strong. To distribute it,
you have to use De Morgan's laws.

>
> Please tell me I'm misinterpreting something.

You're misinterpreting something.


> .uanaisai mu'o mi'e. dilyn.
>

co'o mi'e xorxes