From lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBCn2ennBBoEGeyV-g@googlegroups.com Sat Dec 04 08:30:51 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1POv0V-0004ZT-7y; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:30:50 -0800 Received: by wyb35 with SMTP id 35sf8327562wyb.16 for ; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:30:36 -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:received-spf:received:mime-version:received :sender:received:date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=iggupYuV8pvv/Dw7DozUT/HduF0ZYmy0efeeu3MumAc=; b=N6kwqlv9ZOauBqhJlGB7vk3u+3whj5Uq6pPnEln7v3hcC+RouQSfvJDAnE1ysTb57B QOD6vWvHrn48ygRh/Rv0sp+M14VP/et2AQao7W9vkZbh4OIiQhUxCMnTTxW0sbWbqA/B MjfXZdLhcd6lFNwyI8PRrXJTNgCjG5KIu4C+M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:date:message-id :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=NnbzETNjg+aQ4P02py4zPMJwLWFa+O9Q3fYIY7H4Rs7cEzoOgqXEuoPLVFRCWemVmU +RlZiSbfqtMUaJ9s2CQn1du4T0UmBzkkEP+ReChcqr7WYXHq0GTij2U/k6Jf3jcEisjg SItM8/5ZsfZK1XJierYKLZSVDi2hs6Gn44KwM= Received: by 10.216.140.24 with SMTP id d24mr83344wej.3.1291480231663; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:30:31 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.3.11 with SMTP id 11ls4302788wbl.3.p; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:30:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.157.79 with SMTP id n57mr36900wek.0.1291480230606; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:30:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.17.82 with SMTP id i60mr167750wei.10.1291479360344; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:16:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.17.82 with SMTP id i60mr167749wei.10.1291479360249; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:16:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com (mail-wy0-f175.google.com [74.125.82.175]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id t18si358133wes.1.2010.12.04.08.15.59; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:15:59 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.175; Received: by mail-wy0-f175.google.com with SMTP id 40so10368988wyb.34 for ; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:15:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.235.41 with SMTP id t41mr622374weq.55.1291479359105; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 08:15:59 -0800 (PST) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.183.197 with HTTP; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:15:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 16:15:59 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] na'e vs no'e/to'e From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paskios@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com 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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd407126f2ac0049697f8fc --000e0cd407126f2ac0049697f8fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 How significant is "na'e" in relation to "no'e" and "to'e"? CASE 1 -- when both the scalar extremities and the midpoint are semantically clear: ti no'e blabi This is neither white nor black. ti na'e blabi This is other than white. CASE 2 -- when the scalar extremities but not the midpoint are semantically clear: ti no'e kalri This is neither open nor closed. ti na'e kalri This is other than open. CASE 3 -- when neither the scalar extremities nor the midpoint are semantically clear: ti no'e plise This is neither an apple nor a tol-apple. ti na'e plise This is other than an apple. "no'e" seems to be capable of substituting for "na'e" in many cases, especially in light of "to'e". We use "na'e" when we mean the absence of the selbri's positive sense AND, possibly, opposite sense. If the negation of both extremities is meant, that wouldn't be different from "no'e", would it? If by "na'e blabi" I meant "other than white AND other than tol-white (= black)" i.e. "grey", that would correspond to the neutral scalar region to be denoted by "no'e blabi" i.e. "grey". It seems to me that "na'e blabi" means either "no'e blabi" or "to'e blabi". "na'e" doesn't seem to have a unique explicit meaning other than being ambiguous about the no'e/to'e distinction. What are we to make of this ambiguity? Is it a useful one like the semantics of tanru, or should jbopre learn to avoid using it by becoming more wary of the no'e/to'e distinction? If not the latter (i.e. the ambiguity of "na'e" is useful), why is it that "na'e" has no explicit attitudinal equivalent? "UInai" (opposite negation) corresponds to "to'e SELBRI", not "na'e SELBRI" (e.g. "uinai" means "to'e gleki", not "na'e gleki"), and "UIru'e" (weak affirmation) corresponds to "je'aru'e SELBRI", not "na'e SELBRI" (e.g. "uiru'e" means "je'aru'e gleki", not "na'e gleki"). -- 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. --000e0cd407126f2ac0049697f8fc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How significant is "na'e" in relation to "no'e"= and "to'e"?


CASE 1 -- when both the scalar extrem= ities and the midpoint are semantically clear:

ti no'e blabi
This is neither white nor black.

ti na'e blabi
This is other = than white.


CASE 2 -- when the scalar extremities but not the mi= dpoint are semantically clear:

ti no'e kalri
This is neither = open nor closed.

ti na'e kalri
This is other than open.


CASE 3 -- when= neither the scalar extremities nor the midpoint are semantically clear:
ti no'e plise
This is neither an apple nor a tol-apple.

ti na'e plise
This is other than an apple.


"no&#= 39;e" seems to be capable of substituting for "na'e" in = many cases, especially in light of "to'e". We use "na= 9;e"=A0when we mean the absence of the selbri's positive sense AND= , possibly, opposite sense. If the negation of both extremities is meant, t= hat wouldn't be different from "no'e", would it? If by &q= uot;na'e blabi" I meant "other than white AND other than tol-= white (=3D black)" i.e. "grey", that would correspond to the= neutral scalar region to be denoted by "no'e blabi" i.e. &qu= ot;grey".

It seems to me that "na'e blabi" means either "no= 9;e blabi" or "to'e blabi". "na'e" doesn&#= 39;t seem to have a unique explicit meaning other than being ambiguous abou= t the no'e/to'e distinction. What are we to make of this ambiguity?= Is it a useful one like the semantics of tanru, or should jbopre learn to = avoid using it by becoming more wary of the no'e/to'e distinction? = If not the latter (i.e. the ambiguity of "na'e" is useful), w= hy is it that "na'e" has no explicit attitudinal equivalent? = "UInai" (opposite negation) corresponds to "to'e SELBRI&= quot;, not "na'e SELBRI" (e.g. "uinai" means "= to'e gleki", not "na'e gleki"), and "UIru'e= " (weak affirmation) corresponds to "je'aru'e SELBRI"= ;, not "na'e SELBRI" (e.g. "uiru'e" means "= ;je'aru'e gleki", not "na'e gleki").

--
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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--000e0cd407126f2ac0049697f8fc--