From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 19 12:18:43 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:18:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LDlo3-0001ur-6d for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:18:43 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.242]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LDlo1-0001uP-2e for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:18:43 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so1189419rvf.46 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:18:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Ug9Ar3R8dCg5I2TCw2efXcKaceN39JF3gTpK2xeHNB8=; b=Yk6M98HqwvuURSA4zweMW1khNeZLFvid9qyY3BzwIxZOsqP0hqZuEMqYdio/YHSMhe HKQHYbp/dsyw2DDEK/b76Diw/o3P4HESreo6gvSL76TfWHt/2kkPpEQSNTRkAeqQDFCo sHXAYHDDjD/+ikmcIFFlLUsaPS/YVv3Z+qjs4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=PX6WOASNlMKoOFOzlLBPDFW2caPFLh5jCeYCZI9VIQvDav+Se8k0jmFGUMBjj1oyQz 92hZ60ejE/gBScFtiusw7xsvO/0Cx+OqO1fmbHVh09GMXJnsK3BoAN69BvkdRTOfdpgE IfKtLWLs+XQRiw60d5nBbs/gHaQfRMJS5OAII= Received: by 10.141.210.2 with SMTP id m2mr1244025rvq.26.1229717920346; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:18:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:18:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560812191218t57d53b49g2ca4b6cb658f6b47@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:18:40 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators In-Reply-To: <96f789a60812191145n3ef5285as8fcbfe18d0dd8e48@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <101615.13333.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560812171429j1e9f7202r4381bbd7e063b19e@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812181220tfb3d6c3k56b01d844f9e4075@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812181329y69bf5672of028ac125047536d@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812190833k22700061i143be7bf997749ce@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812191005nd881082tddfabf6d283f6494@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812191055s797c629bnf7e749e17902096d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812191115n270695d3j2b072ab530895f9f@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812191145n3ef5285as8fcbfe18d0dd8e48@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15125 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> > >> > And there is for "na", too. Like the first >> > transform of transforming it (if it's in a selbri) to "naku" at the >> > start of a prenex. >> >> Except when it isn't. When {na} is in a selbri, it can't always be >> moved to the start of a prenex. > > Please explain/show counterexample? For example the one we have been discusing {su'o da na broda gi'e brode}. >> With the na-rule in place, who knows? CLL doesn't mention that case. Who do >> we ask? > > The BPFK, no? Isn't that part of your job description to define ill-defined > areas (rather than rewriting already-defined areas?) Right. An unfortunate situation given the BPFK's response time. >> For me it is obvious that the Right Thing is >> >> su'o da (na broda) gi'e (brode) >> = su'o da (broda) na gi'e (brode) >> = su'o da ga (na broda) gi'e (brode) >> = su'o da ga nai (broda) gi'e (brode) > > (I think you meant gi, not gi'e, in the last two??) Yes. >> > Heck, is "su'oda naku broda gi'e brode" the same as "su'oda >> > ge naku broda gi brode" or "su'oda nage broda gi brode"? >> >> It is "su'o da naku ge broda gi broda". Nobody should have any doubt >> about that one. {naku} is a shared term for broda and brode. > > Is it? So how would you negate just the first part (there is someone who > is not a broda, but is a brode) using naku and gi'e? "su'o da broda naku gi'e brode" mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.