From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Wed Nov 03 07:17:23 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 34342 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2004 15:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m22.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Nov 2004 15:17:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Nov 2004 15:17:23 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CPMpu-0004aY-TU for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 07:14:11 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CPMot-0004PE-JV; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 07:13:08 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 03 Nov 2004 07:13:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41908.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.159]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CPMoc-0004Dh-Dn for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 07:12:50 -0800 Message-ID: <20041103151216.72255.qmail@web41908.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41908.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 07:12:16 PST Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:12:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20041102222605.GB10350@thedave.chch.ox.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 8926 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: na scope. Again. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23332 --- Martin Bays wrote: > While we're on the subject... Is the BPFK or anyone else ba'o a ca a pu'o > working on the various problems with the interaction between negation, > unprenexed quantifiers and infix connectives, as raised e.g. by pycyn on the > wiki some months (years?) ago > (http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Logic+Language+Draft+3.1)? I am doing the section on NA, which should cover some of that. My intention is to propose an interpretation where the scope of {na} is restricted to what follows it. > Last I heard much of the semantics in even slightly complicated cases was > ill-defined. Is this still the case? Yes. We always have the option of using the well defined structure: i.e. explicit prenex quantification, negation only in the prenex and forethought connectives. Hopefully we will come up with consistent rules for how all other structures can be expressed in terms of the well defined one. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com