From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Nov 03 12:17:23 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 83646 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2004 20:17:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Nov 2004 20:17:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Nov 2004 20:17:22 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CPRZI-0003lv-PU for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:17:20 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CPRYb-0003kw-72; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:16:37 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:16:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CPRYQ-0003kc-2T for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:16:26 -0800 Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:16:26 -0800 Message-ID: <20041103201626.GJ25376@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20041103182058.49411.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> <41892F95.2010804@bilkent.edu.tr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41892F95.2010804@bilkent.edu.tr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i X-archive-position: 8935 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: na scope. Again. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23341 On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:20:53PM +0200, robin wrote: > Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > >What it would change is simple negations like {mi e do na klama > >le zarci}. Instead of meaning that either I don't go, or you > >don't go, or both, it would mean that neither I nor you go. > > I would find that rather weird (lojbanically - it makes sense if > you want to make Lojban closer to English), and also think it > would defeat the point of using "na" rather than "na'e". If "na" > doesn't mean "it is not the case that [brivla]", what does it mean > that isn't covered by a different negative? The goal would be to make "na" equivalent to a "na ku" in the same place, because otherwise the scoping is really wierd and people often get it wrong. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/