From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Dec 22 09:09:07 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:09:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LEoHD-0005bl-1S for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:09:07 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.244]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LEoHA-0005bM-4e for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:09:06 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so2295207rvf.46 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:09:03 -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=GK5JHQI3lAoPtU2yFNo5MSK38c9rLWE9nQRx4k3gd8E=; b=PcajmUVtoQ9mV7TEE1zWbxyeXNW61F6aDOHQJeIsaqL8rfMQm2EC6Y2TweOhCIlZpH nB/gCCGlUNwRMvtfHLsfky2diuJ2UJE+xVoYhw/u1yGCPmM7rqNvLFg2UKAguMotL0tG CgAn8inTew2+1D4kxlOtAk1C9xohjgH1gTZ4g= 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=bcyoMhIUVdARo3B3hRGEFATFoWyIz4p9wNVYmIg3NvSpq7jNnBmgIt5dfSLDP7tOnT OySoxodYMmcCs0poxOGGNdhXr9dggrnft06Ro7lIRUCK9SGvnIaUDf3FF0YZxb9uciUe S1JgfLEuRyKXNal3oPxwF/ksuAg4HUslPgubY= Received: by 10.140.201.8 with SMTP id y8mr3297632rvf.12.1229965743340; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:09:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:09:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560812220909l1add6ea1p4298e5b90116ae0f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:09:03 -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: <96f789a60812220821r6be20521j7db3137e0acf4ae1@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <101615.13333.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <96f789a60812190833k22700061i143be7bf997749ce@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812191005nd881082tddfabf6d283f6494@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812191055s797c629bnf7e749e17902096d@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812191115n270695d3j2b072ab530895f9f@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812191145n3ef5285as8fcbfe18d0dd8e48@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812191218t57d53b49g2ca4b6cb658f6b47@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812220528s702e86tffd8fb964c4550d0@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812220557j4ea5d2baybf97c7a7e64badd9@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812220821r6be20521j7db3137e0acf4ae1@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15133 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 Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > >> >> "su'o da broda naku gi'e brode" > > Okay, so now I'm getting further and further confused about your rule. That's not "my" rule. The rules for "naku" are, as far as I know, not in the least controversial. The only rule about which there is disagreement is na+selbri, and that one does not appear in the above example. > I > thought I understood it, based on your claim that it was straightforward and > easy to apply. Now naku is working (scoping) backward (leftward)? There is no other operator there for naku to have scope over. It is the last operator in its bridi. > And yet, > if you have it before the broda, you say that it applies to both broda and > brode? It's not me who says that. That's the standard, official interpretation. The terms in front of connected bridi-tails are common terms. > I'm sorry, xorxes, but I really can't use a rule where I have to > submit every utterance to you first to decide how what it means to you. Do you understand the grammar of {gi'e}? It's as folows: shared-terms (first-selbri terms-of-first-selbri) gi'e (second-selbri terms-of-second-selbri) Notice that there is no room before the first selbri for a non-shared {naku} term. > It > really seems to be working in arbitrary ways. It is not arbitrary. And in any case, I emphasize that it is not *my* rule. It's the official rule. > This might be my own > densitude, but the rules in the CLL seem very straightforward, and yours > really don't. YMMV But you don't seem to be applying the CLL rules correctly in this case. > This whole thread started with my > assertion that "[na's] meaning in very complicated sentence with both > existential qualifiers and bridi tails is not well-defined." And your > counter assertion " If {su'o da na broda gi'e brode} counts as a 'very > complicated sentence', then the characterization of Lojban as 'spoken > predicate logic' is almost a sham. The relative scopes of quantifiers, > logical connectives and negation should be very straightforward." Exactly. > It seems > that you are now agreeing with me that in order for communication to take > place, both the speaker and audience must agree on how to interpret > utterances and that the types of sentences under discussion are not > well-defined. That's why the characterization is a bit of a sham, when the rule for na in such a simple sentence is so ill defined. (But the rules for naku are perfectly well defined.) > Of course, other than our two voices, we've only heard from > Pierre (And by proxy, J Cowan in CLL?)). It seems to me I'd have an easier > (read:less-confusing) time communicating with the latter two in lojban than > with you. Maybe. > Let me be absolutely, absolutely clear, and I've said this many times > before, but it bears repeating, especially when my tenor seems harsh: I > respect you, xorxes, I really do. You are both an undisputed jbocre, and > always willing to reach out to lojbanists of all levels in helping to expand > understanding of the language. lo du'u mi se raktu so'i lo se xusra be do > kei na jdikygau mi lo ka sinma do Thanks, but really, I enjoy these exchanges. I don't think disagreement equals disrespect. (Fake agreement would be disrespectful, honest disagreement is prefectly respectful.) 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.