From lojban+bncCK30vq5WEO79pecEGgSwlDsx@googlegroups.com Sun Nov 21 12:20:15 2010 Received: from mail-pv0-f189.google.com ([74.125.83.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PKGOQ-0004w6-HQ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:20:15 -0800 Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1sf504180pvh.16 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:20:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; bh=HUQoesRW0l++PmXGcjb/yN232u6drU2TKP+yPuT1VhA=; b=KUiIPcyz2yZJcuNKxPpoNjBwBtPPw6Z0QMKbGoMZH19Nv1cfDwFo+mxbH4VinF5r1h dAqct7XbUG8C7Z4xSsS9D9LPys3+Zmg/JJ8QEjpVyxV3crB/vdHXjN6NvDO7oQMdu6Bz gEycbRrM3tV+o5TM5YEY36ohJcrLHlLa87yQo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; b=59FrUtv8m5SgDQ54jCrwXcc21qMN5o++zpo1KMvo4FmO2GjVMVZA9g4TJ4JtcsYriq 0IPT/WpmVRsQ4Wq34gRw8aosUIzzUNuvV1NIKBb156L0UtIm/QmfeL9ZdaZDV4MoZXKf Y3Vg8tIjkck0kqiCkc+YJYNi8Hd85S6FP2/RE= Received: by 10.142.56.11 with SMTP id e11mr189691wfa.58.1290370798183; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:19:58 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.2.41 with SMTP id 41ls2844034wfb.0.p; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.71.21 with SMTP id t21mr3010874wfa.73.1290370793547; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.71.21 with SMTP id t21mr3010873wfa.73.1290370793522; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:19:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (digitalkingdom.org [173.13.139.234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id f13si6313891wfo.4.2010.11.21.12.19.52; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:19:52 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.234; Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PKGO7-0004un-Hz for lojban@googlegroups.com; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:19:51 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:19:51 -0800 From: Robin Lee Powell To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Does {na nei} work like that? Message-ID: <20101121201951.GV9301@digitalkingdom.org> References: <201011211317.42297.phma@phma.optus.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:13:08PM -0700, Jonathan Jones wrote: > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > > > On Saturday 20 November 2010 16:06:36 ianek wrote: > > > coi > > > {na nei} should work like {na go'i}. According to LLC 15.9, {na} > > > replaces previous negation, not negates it. Just like this: > > > A: i le vi karce na crino > > > B: i na go'i > > > > > > A: this car isn't green > > > B: it isn't > > > > > > So {na nei} should mean "this negative statement is indeed true", or > > > I'm awfully wrong. > > > > That's what I think too. What happens, though, when you have > > several {na} or {ja'a} in front of a selbri? > > > > I think the right way to say "this statement is false" is "dei > > jitfa". > > > From Robin Lee Powell's signature: > > Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this > parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", *but "this sentence > is false" is "na nei".* Yes, I'm pretty sure that's what they were replying to. They're point is that {na nei} means something like "this negated statement is true", which isn't a contradiction the way "this statement is false" is. It's more like " "not this statement" is false", which is trivially true. {la'e dei jitfa}, surely? That has the profound disadvantage of not being *nearly* as funny. Wholesale replacements welcome. -Robin -- http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.