Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:32:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711220032.TAA04559@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: `at least one ' vrs `one or more' X-To: "lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu" To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1481 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 21 19:32:58 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Bob wrote: =20 But the question revolves around the negation of mi nelci lo mlatu where {lo mlatu} means `some number of real cats, but not necessarily = all'. The negation [naku zo'u mi nelci lo mlatu -- CB] is translated as "for some number of cats x, not necessarily everyone, it is not the case that I like x." No! Your two English translations above are NOT CONTRADICTORY. It's = possible to like some cats and not like others. The contradiction of "I = like at least one cat" is "I don't like any cats". If one is true, the = other must be false, and vice versa. That's what the word negation = means, and that's what [naku] means. THEREFORE if {mi nelci lo mlatu} = means "I like at least one cat", then {naku zo'u mi nelci lo mlatu} MUST = mean that statement's exact logical opposite: "I don't like any cats". = Otherwise, {naku} wouldn't really be negation, would it? If you want to say that there are some cats you don't like, you have to = mention the cats *before* the naku, so that the naku is not truly = negating the whole sentence: mi nelci lo mlatu naku --- there are some cats I don't like The logical structure of lojban is more basic and more important than = the veridiciality of {lo}. If you've found some way to interpret the = English glosses of {lo} to allow exceptions to {naku}'s ability to truly = negate a sentence, then those glosses are in error, not the basic logic = of the language. co'o mi'e kris