From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:45:20 2010 Date: Tue, 16 May 1995 18:47:46 EDT From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: TECH: Negation To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Tue May 16 23:57:51 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: 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