From hfroark@bigmailbox.net Mon Oct 15 12:55:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: hfroark@bigmailbox.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 15 Oct 2001 19:55:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 47649 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2001 19:55:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 15 Oct 2001 19:55:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n11.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.50) by mta1 with SMTP; 15 Oct 2001 19:55:28 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: hfroark@bigmailbox.net Received: from [10.1.10.103] by n11.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Oct 2001 19:32:04 -0000 Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:32:02 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Rafsi for "nai"? Message-ID: <9qfdji+latk@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1864 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 204.211.254.24 From: hfroark@bigmailbox.net X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11583 I am finding the absence of a rafsi for "nai" in connectives problematic. As a tanru, "neuter" can be traslated "nakni najenai festi", but in compressing it to a lujvo "nak-nar-jev-nar(?)-fe'i". leading to "naknarjevnarfe'i", I wonder if "nar" is an acceptable rafsi for "nai". neuter: nakni najenai fetsi nak-nar-jev-nar-fe'i naknarjavnarfe'i Hermaphrodite translates easily: hermaphrodite: nakni je fetsi nak-jev-fe'i nakyjevyfe'i A third expression I came up with playing with tanru logical connectives, I find translates with an extra step because of the question I have about a rafsi for "nai". There is no standard English word for it; the best translation I can come up with is "mono-sexed" "mono-sexed": nakni jonai fetsi nakni najo fetsi nak-nar-jov-fe'i naknarjovyfe'i I moved the negation from the "nai" end of the "jo" to the "na" end before making a lujvo. This isn't a serious problem here because they "jonai" means the same as "najo", and this would be true of a nuber of other cases, but I see six common cases with a "nai" 1)broda najenai brodu: neither of the two (the one covered by neuter) 2)broda najanai brodu: not both 3)broda sejunai brodu: not second, regardless of first 4)broda jenai brodu: first and not second 5)broda janai brodu: first (i)or not second 6)broda jonai brodu: first xor second Case 6 has the other common form of "najo", so that one is easily taken care of: broda najo brodu. Cases 4 and 5 can be haldled by reordering selbri: 4)brodu naje broda 5)brodu naja broda Case 3 has the not so obvious conversion of: 3)brodu naju broda. That is the selbri are reversed and as a consequence of that reversal "seju" becomes "ju". It is cases 1 and 2 that can not be handled by simply using a less common connective form. I don't see how they can be handled without a rafsi for "nai".