From adam@pubcrawler.org Tue Nov 02 14:54:51 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:54:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from [69.55.227.156] (helo=transfinite.hypercomplex.net ident=root) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1CP7Y1-0002DC-QS for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:54:42 -0800 Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (hive.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.14]) by transfinite.hypercomplex.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.4.swsoft) with ESMTP id iA2MtLMZ015040 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:55:22 -0800 Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iA2M4wT0006374; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:04:58 -0600 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id iA2M4wv9006371; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:04:58 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: hive.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:04:58 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: na scope. Again. In-Reply-To: <20041102215029.GP2858@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: References: <20041102213330.GA10350@thedave.chch.ox.ac.uk> <20041102214429.52886.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com> <20041102215029.GP2858@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Delayed for 00:49:22 by milter-greylist-1.4 (transfinite.hypercomplex.net [69.55.227.156]); Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:55:22 -0800 (PST) X-archive-position: 8921 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >>>> The three meanings can be unambiguously expressed thusly: >>>> >>>> (1) mi ge na nelci gi djica >>>> (2) mi ge na nelci gi na djica >>>> (3) mi na ge nelci gi djica > I don't see a semantic difference between (2) and (3); am I missing > something? {mi na ge nelci gi djica} is "It is not that case that I both like and want," so (by DeMorgan's Law) {mi ga na nelci gi na djica}. mu'a, if {mi ja'a nelci .ije mi na djica} then 2 is false, but 3 is true. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ "Bother," said Pooh as he bounced off the Starfury.