Message-Id: <199508091713.NAA13297@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 9 Aug 1995 11:54:03 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: negation/opposition
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

This was sent to me, but I think it was meant for the list. To send something
to the list the address is: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu

> From: Bertil <bertilj@algonet.se>
> To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu
> Subject: negation/opposition
>
> Hello,
>
> I m a new lojbanist, i have recently gone through the 18 lessons in the
> teaching book.
>
> I have also tried to be able to read the recent newsletter on
> quantifiers. I must say though that I have not been able to understand so
> much. My background is practical language, not logics or mathematics. I
> have studied a lot of different languages, both within the indoeuropean
> group and outside. I have long been interested in auxiolary languages,
> and also have strong feelings on what they should be like.
>
> Lojban has a lot of interesting concepts, and it has taught me some more
> things about linguistics.
>
> However I have difficulties realizing the benifit of having so many
> words, quite different words, for things which you could derive from the
> same. For example 'negation' as you put it. I wonder if it is not the
> term 'negation' which make things difficult. I would call it 'opposite'.
> Negation is somehting else.
>
> For example small is not the same as not-big. In my playing with
> languages right now I put 'j' as being the opposite and 'n' being negation.
> so:
>
>       small = jbig
>     not big = nbig
>   not small = njbig
>
> Is it worth so much that opposite words should be on their own and
> develop freely? I have great difficulties understanding that...
>
> Could you explain!
>
>
> /bj

My comments:

It is true that Lojban has lots of opposites that could be derived
from the same word, I'm not sure what was the philosophy behind it.
I suspect it was at least partly as an overreaction to some people's
dislike of Esperanto's "mal-", but that is just my theory.

I also agree that {to'e} (or tol- for compounds) should be called
"opposite", not "negation".

A more subtle difference is that between true predicate negation {na},
and selbri negation {na'e}. For example:

        ti na barda
        This isn't big.

        ti na'e barda
        This is non-big.

The first is a negative statement, while the second is an affirmation.

Jorge