From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhD0tMruBBoECoHBQQ@googlegroups.com Tue May 17 08:55:49 2011 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QMMcZ-0006aG-89; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:55:49 -0700 Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5sf1341979qwh.16 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:55:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=EuJlyvE3fkW4PKNKbp5Sb/6DI3442UjzCpUa++LD62c=; b=BxpAG3ATEyOV9yWieRWxyxAvocxgi8HnkFKfY/DmsMqxxx09fr9Xb83sQjj9SmZjRm rnGbiI2PZMqmEjt1NWbR7kD7c+dRiBgdzxjIAMDtOXorge38nZjl0Y1BCE+YoysiVQ1M nqW4jYbnsvynljV7Yoi7mOFtJROxdKcKHpvvc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=W8wq+4pL0gA6kA4BSiXb1Sr0KTAZ8XqGXucZM7WGrIoZklCrKNmIxKoMDXdjvePw4B nM+M5MmzFEHEdKCijcSYLq5BLXtL1dVrmXYT3MXXsrEq+QOp9S15IoXCNhMEKQVvm7r3 Lh/hBBjp/efBG3eX7dfHzVFK5DHu3gDZhm93s= Received: by 10.229.126.219 with SMTP id d27mr104350qcs.13.1305647732432; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:55:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.57.73 with SMTP id b9ls1664209qch.0.gmail; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.11.36 with SMTP id r36mr90333qcr.18.1305647730796; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.11.36 with SMTP id r36mr90331qcr.18.1305647730751; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f176.google.com (mail-qy0-f176.google.com [209.85.216.176]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w19si146074qco.3.2011.05.17.08.55.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 17 May 2011 08:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.176 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.176; Received: by qyk30 with SMTP id 30so472037qyk.0 for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:55:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.6.129 with SMTP id 1mr573621qaz.164.1305647730551; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.62.78 with HTTP; Tue, 17 May 2011 08:55:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <435258.79684.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <435258.79684.qm@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 11:55:30 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no" From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.176 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cb5802e6e1404a37acdb1 --0015175cb5802e6e1404a37acdb1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:43 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > Not to prolong the rhetoric, but, as is usually the case in this sort of > argument, you are arguing from two different points. You claim that since > {no da [flying teapot]} may be true, {lo no [flying teapot]} must be a > legitimate expression. tijlan is arguing that, since {lo broda} requires > that there be a broda and {lo no broda} would claim that there is not one, > {no lo broda} must be an illegitimate expression. > (typo filter .. You obviously meant "lo no broda", but forgive you and love you anyway) > I suspect that you also regularly confuse being with existing, so that > the fact that flying teapost do not exist is evidence that {lo broda} refers > to nothing and thus {lo no broda} is legitimate. If I have misunderstood > you, I apologize, but it seems to me that you are wrong on all counts: the > non-existence of flying teapots does not say anything about whether there > are any; they may be in the universe of discourse ("be") but just not in the > extension of "exists" (which is a predicate, at least in Lojban). > Maybe, maybe not. But I'm trying to limit discussion to a limited universe of discourse. In the case of flying teapots and trained-assassins-that-I'm-sending-you, those that exist. In the case of dogs, those that are in the room. We already know that xorlo permits us to leave things to context, so that's the context I'm working in. It is the cardinality of those, nomei, that I'm trying to ascertain. For does the inner qualifier refer to, other than cardinality? > Since {no da broda} explicitly claims that there are no brodas (not only > that they don't exist) it is incompatible with the legitimacy of {lo broda}, > which is meaningful only if there are brodas. Indeed, the use (in main > clauses, say) of {lo broda} guarantees that there are broda and, thus, that > {no da broda} is false. In the logic of the situation, {lo no broda} > implies that there are broda, but it says there is a [whatever] that > contains none of them (and, presumably, nothing else neither). But every > [whatever] contains at least one thing, namely itself, and which, > furthermore, is a broda. So, the notion of {lo no broda} is simply > contradictory. > I see your point, since "lo ci broda cu broda" Where I don't think I agree is that I see "lo no broda cu broda", and "lo no broda cu to'e broda" as bothe being true. That is, the mass composed of the members of a null set is a weird beast where any broda you stick in is irrelevant, since they all collapse onto the same thing -- a nothingness which simultaneously has every property in the universe except perhaps for "beingness" (whatever the heck that means) and "composed of the members of set a with non-zero cardinality". You see it has having only one property -- "self-contradictoriness" ;-) > The only loose links here are the claim that the use of{lo broda} > requires that there are brodas or that such expressions refer to [whatever]s > with the cited properties. But both of these are fundamental to xorlo, > which is, as I've said, about as official as anything here. You can reject > it, fo course, but that leaves you with the need to devise some other scheme > that solves the problems that xorlo solves without getting into new ones. > I'd welcome that attempt, but having worked at it for 35 years, I'm not very > sanguine. > I don't reject it. On the other hand, I don't reject the CLL's version of events, either. Nor do I think the formulation will come up in ordinary conversation often enough to justify all the handwringing that's being done about it. Let me ask you a question -- would it make things any easier if I said, "okay, I won't use an inner qualifier of no with 'lo', but I reserve the right to use it with 'le'"? I"m willing to live with that compromise, if that will make all your philosophical Gordian Knots go away. Cause really, I just don't care that passionately about it, depsite all my responses to the contrary. --gejyspa > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Michael Turniansky > *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Tue, May 17, 2011 7:11:27 AM > > *Subject:* Re: [lojban] "lo no" > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:35 AM, tijlan wrote: > >> On 16 May 2011 13:13, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> > No, I am not asking you to arbitrarily make one up. I am asking you >> to >> > think about exactly how many trained assassing I am sending your way, >> > because all of them are deadly. (And if you think the answer is more >> than >> > zero, that says a lot more about your paranoia then it does about lojban >> > quanitifers.) >> >> I already addressed that confusion of yours. Linguistic reference does >> not hinge upon physical reality. You can make reference to some flying >> teapot which doesn't physically exist or which you don't believe >> physically exists. Since "is-flying-teapot" cannot say of nothing but >> something, anything with the property "is-flying-teapot" is >> necessarily of more than zero cardinality. When you say "I'm sending >> the trained assassins your way", you are linguistically referring to >> some non-zero entity; but I don't here have to assume that the >> referred entity has a physical factual correlate (such an assumption >> depends on the pragmatics, not syntax or semantics, of your statement, >> and I'm informed by that pragmatics that you may not be stating a >> physical reality). >> >> > > Right, but this is where we disagree. I say you CAN say > "is-flying-teapot" of a nothing. I am not going to argue this point > anymore, because you understand what I am saying, and I understand what you > are saying. No point in going round and round here. Anymore sentences you > say on this exact point will be ignored, but do not think that the fact of > my ignoring them means I agree with you. It just means I'm sick of the same > points being raised again and again, as if repetition is a valid rhetorical > style to get something across. > > >> >> >> "three things" differ from "zero thing" primarily in that >> >> they are both individually and collectively something as opposed to >> >> nothing; and so on. As far as cardinality is concerned, the difference >> >> between "zero" and "some" is more primitive than the difference >> >> between "zero" and positive integers. The fact that "some" can be >> >> meaningful in primitive terms of "non-zero" rather than of such >> >> particulars as "one" or "three", warrants the act of making reference >> >> to something with no provision for its specific total quantity. >> > >> > It may not be integers, but I would think you defnitely have to be >> > positive reals, at the very least in order to qualify "some". (su'o) >> >> You don't always need to be able to qualify "some" with an exact >> number, especially when what's at stake is the primitive difference of >> something from nothing. > > > I never said that you need to be able to qualify it with an _exact_ > number. I am saying that quantitiy, whatever it is, must be a non-negative, > non-imaginary number, in order to be "somethingness" as opposed to a > "nothingness" You say much the same down below. > > >> There are cases when a reference to >> "non-nothing" is more meaningful than to "three things", for instance. >> Suppose I want to change the paint of the walls of my room by today's >> evening -- "I'm going to give them a new coat of paint": >> >> mi ba punji lo cinta lo bitmu >> >> What's important for me is that the walls will have different paint >> than the current one -- whether one material or three hundred >> materials of paints, not important. Not only I'm unconcerned with the >> number of lo cinta to be applied, also this number is factually >> undetermined; not only I don't subjectively know how many lo cinta I'm >> going to use, also there is no objective answer to "lo xo cinta" as of >> now. It might even turn out that the wall wouldn't after all change by >> the evening because I had been too busy doing other things or I >> changed my own mind. > > > In the last case you have not put paint on the walls, or to put it > another way, you have put "lo no cinta {of the paint you actually put on the > walls}" on the walls (or "no lo {whatever amount you intended to put} cinta" > on the walls. The statements mean two different things, but refer to the > same end result in the physical word) > > >> Would these factors affect my reference to lo >> cinta? Would I have made a meaningless statement by "mi ba punji lo >> cinta lo bitmu" just because I epistemologically couldn't set a >> specific cardinality for lo cinta? > > > Again, you are bringing up a red herring. The amount IS quantifiable, > whether or not you (or anything) know what it is, can measure it, etc. Even > if it is a range, even if it is constantly chagning, is an eigenstate, > whatever. > > >> Would I have meant nothing by "lo >> cinta" just because it eventually turned out to be none? No: >> regardless of the physical reality, my sumti did refer to the concept >> of some paint. The term "lo cinta" was primitively meaningful by >> virtue of the reference to non-nothing, without any exact number as a >> subjective or objective answer to "lo xo cinta". >> >> >> >> In Lojban, only "no" can exactly quantify nothing, and all non-"no" >> >> cardinalities can be defined by means of contrast to "no": "nonai". If >> >> I had to fill the inner quantifier for "no lo xo broda" from your >> >> example, I might say "nonai". >> > >> > There's no such grammatical contruct, >> >> no nai = PA NAI or PA UI = PA* >> >> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=zasni+gerna+cenba+vreji >> >> "NAI: Extended its grammar to that of indicators, i.e. it is allowed >> after any word." >> >> "nonai" would have the composite meaning of "other than zero". And the >> set of cardinal numbers which are "other than zero" seem more than >> undefinable: >> > > > But that page is not canon. That's xorxes' proposed extension of the > grammar. > > > >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number >> >> >> > but again, I would hate to think >> > that you can mean by that negatives, or imaginary numbers. >> >> "PA mei" never means a negative or imaginary number, insofar as the >> interlocuters properly understand what cardinality is about. >> >> > That's fine. Like I said, if you are wiling to restrict its domain in > that way, I have no problem with that. But we already HAVE a construct that > means that, za'uno So you don't have to reinvent the wheel. "nonai" would > include things like ka'o and ni'ure. > > > >> Such 'restrictive' compositions exist in other parts of the language. >> For example, we don't say "ci lo pa gerku", because, however >> syntactically valid, "ci" makes no sense in the composition that it's >> in. Likewise, we shouldn't assume "nonai mei" could mean negatives or >> imaginary numbers, because such are never to be in the scope set by >> "mei" in its compositional relation to the preceding PA. >> >> > > But like I said, if you mean "greater than zero", than SAY that, not > "non-zero". Otherwise, that's as foolish as saying something like > "magnetic poles always come in pairs, therefore when I say 'three poles', I > really mean 'four poles' " (imperfect analogy, but you get my drift). > "nonaimei", it's very true, I might not imagine might mean anything other > than non-negative reals, but "nonai" by itself does NOT suggest that, which > is what you previously stated. "za'uno" on the other hand, always does. Why > not use it? > > --gejyspa > > > > > -- > 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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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. --0015175cb5802e6e1404a37acdb1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:43 AM, John E Cliffor= d <kali9putra@= yahoo.com> wrote:
Not to prolong the rhetoric, but, as is usually the case in this = sort of argument, you are arguing from two different=A0 points.=A0 You clai= m that since {no da [flying teapot]} may be true, {lo no [flying teapot]} m= ust be a legitimate expression.=A0 tijlan is arguing that, since {lo broda}= requires that there be a broda and {lo no broda} would claim that there is= not one, {no lo broda} must be an illegitimate expression.
=A0
=A0 (typo filter .. You obviously meant "lo no broda", but f= orgive you and love you anyway)
=A0
=A0 I suspect that you also regularly confuse being with existing= , so that the fact that flying teapost do not exist is evidence that {lo br= oda} refers to nothing and thus {lo no broda} is legitimate.=A0 If I have m= isunderstood you, I apologize, but it seems to me that you are wrong on all= counts: the non-existence of flying teapots does not say anything about wh= ether there are any; they may be in the universe of discourse ("be&quo= t;) but just not in the extension of "exists" (which is a predica= te, at least in Lojban).=A0
=A0
=A0 Maybe, maybe not.=A0 But I'm trying to limit discussion to a l= imited universe of discourse.=A0 In the case of flying teapots and trained-= assassins-that-I'm-sending-you, those that exist.=A0 In the case of dog= s, those that are in the room.=A0 We already know that xorlo permits us to = leave things to context, so that's the context I'm working in.=A0 I= t is the cardinality of those, nomei, that I'm trying to ascertain.=A0 = For does the inner qualifier refer to, other than cardinality?
=A0
Since {no da broda} explicitly claims that there are no brodas (n= ot only that they don't exist) it is incompatible with the legitimacy o= f {lo broda}, which is meaningful only if there are brodas.=A0 Indeed, the = use (in main clauses, say) of {lo broda} guarantees that there are broda an= d, thus, that {no da broda} is false.=A0 In the logic of the situation, {lo= no broda} implies that there are broda, but it says there is a [whatever] = that contains none of them (and, presumably, nothing else neither).=A0 But = every [whatever] contains at least one thing, namely itself, and which, fur= thermore, is a broda.=A0 So, the notion of {lo no broda} is simply contradi= ctory.=A0
=A0
=A0 I see your point, since "lo ci broda cu broda"=A0 Where = I don't think I agree is that I=A0see "lo no broda cu broda",= and "lo no broda cu to'e broda" as bothe being true.=A0 That= is, the=A0mass composed of=A0 the members of a null set is a weird beast= =A0 where any broda you stick in is irrelevant, since they all collapse ont= o the same thing -- a nothingness which simultaneously has every property i= n the universe except perhaps for "beingness" (whatever the heck = that means) and "composed of the members of set a with non-zero cardin= ality".=A0 You see it has having only one property -- "self-contr= adictoriness" ;-)
=A0
The only loose links here are the claim that the use of{lo broda}= requires that there are brodas or that such expressions refer to [whatever= ]s with the cited properties.=A0 But both of these are fundamental to xorlo= , which is, as I've said, about as official as anything here.=A0 You ca= n reject it, fo course, but that leaves you with the need to devise some ot= her scheme that solves the problems that xorlo solves without getting into = new ones.=A0 I'd welcome that attempt, but having worked at it for 35 y= ears, I'm not very sanguine.
=A0
=A0I don't reject it.=A0 On the other hand, I don't reject the= CLL's version of events, either.=A0 Nor do I think the formulation wil= l come up in ordinary conversation often enough to justify all the handwrin= ging that's being done about it.=A0 Let me ask you a question -- would = it make things any easier if I said, "okay, I won't use an inner q= ualifier of no with 'lo', but I reserve the right to use it with &#= 39;le'"? I"m willing to live with that compromise, if that wi= ll make all your philosophical Gordian Knots go away.=A0 Cause really, I ju= st don't care that passionately about it, depsite all my responses to t= he contrary.
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gejyspa
=A0
=A0
=A0


From: Michael Turniansky &l= t;mturniansky@gm= ail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroup= s.com
Sent: Tue, May 17, 2011 7:1= 1:27 AM=20

Subject:<= /b> Re: [lojban] "lo no"



On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:35 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
I already addressed that confusion of yours= . Linguistic reference does
not hinge upon physical reality. You can mak= e reference to some flying
teapot which doesn't physically exist or = which you don't believe
physically exists. Since "is-flying-teapot" cannot say of nothing= but
something, anything with the property "is-flying-teapot" = is
necessarily of more than zero cardinality. When you say "I'm= sending
the trained assassins your way", you are linguistically referring tosome non-zero entity; but I don't here have to assume that the
ref= erred entity has a physical factual correlate (such an assumption
depend= s on the pragmatics, not syntax or semantics, of your statement,
and I'm informed by that pragmatics that you may not be stating a
ph= ysical reality).
=A0
=A0
=A0 Right, but this is where we disagree.=A0 I say you CAN say "i= s-flying-teapot" of a nothing.=A0 I am not going to argue this point a= nymore, because you understand what I am saying, and I understand what you = are saying.=A0 No point in going round and round here.=A0 Anymore sentences= you say on this exact point will be ignored, but do not think that the fac= t of my ignoring them means I agree with you.=A0 It just means I'm sick= of the same points being raised again and again, as if repetition is a val= id rhetorical style to get something across.
=A0

>> "three things" differ from "zero thing&quo= t; primarily in that
>> they are both individually and collectivel= y something as opposed to
>> nothing; and so on. As far as cardina= lity is concerned, the difference
>> between "zero" and "some" is more primitive th= an the difference
>> between "zero" and positive integer= s. The fact that "some" can be
>> meaningful in primitiv= e terms of "non-zero" rather than of such
>> particulars as "one" or "three", warrants the = act of making reference
>> to something with no provision for its = specific total quantity.
>
> =A0 It may not be integers, but I = would think you defnitely have to be
> positive reals, at the very least in order to qualify "some"= . (su'o)

You don't always need to be able to qualify &= quot;some" with an exact
number, especially when what's at stak= e is the primitive difference of
something from nothing.
=A0
=A0 I never said that you need to be able to qualify it with an _exact= _ number.=A0 I am saying that quantitiy, whatever it is, must be a non-nega= tive, non-imaginary number, in order to be "somethingness" as opp= osed to a "nothingness"=A0 You say much the same down below.
=A0
There are cases when a reference= to
"non-nothing" is more meaningful than to "three thing= s", for instance.
Suppose I want to change the paint of the walls of my room by today'sevening -- "I'm going to give them a new coat of paint":
mi ba punji lo cinta lo bitmu

What's important for me is th= at the walls will have different paint
than the current one -- whether one material or three hundred
materials = of paints, not important. Not only I'm unconcerned with the
number o= f lo cinta to be applied, also this number is factually
undetermined; no= t only I don't subjectively know how many lo cinta I'm
going to use, also there is no objective answer to "lo xo cinta" = as of
now. It might even turn out that the wall wouldn't after all c= hange by
the evening because I had been too busy doing other things or I=
changed my own mind.
=A0
=A0 In the last case you have not put paint on the walls, or to put it= another way, you have put "lo no cinta {of the paint you actually put= on the walls}" on the walls (or "no lo {whatever amount you inte= nded to put} cinta" on the walls.=A0 The statements mean two different= things, but refer to the same end result in the physical word)
=A0
Would these factors affect my re= ference to lo
cinta? Would I have made a meaningless statement by "= mi ba punji lo
cinta lo bitmu" just because I epistemologically couldn't set aspecific cardinality for lo cinta?
=A0
=A0 Again, you are bringing up a red herring.=A0 The amount IS quantif= iable, whether or not you (or anything) know what it is, can measure it, et= c.=A0 Even if it is a range, even if it is constantly chagning, is an eigen= state, whatever.
=A0
Would I have meant nothing by &q= uot;lo
cinta" just because it eventually turned out to be none? No:=
regardless of the physical reality, my sumti did refer to the concept
of= some paint. The term "lo cinta" was primitively meaningful byvirtue of the reference to non-nothing, without any exact number as a
subjective or objective answer to "lo xo cinta".


>> In Lojban, only "no" can exactly quantify n= othing, and all non-"no"
>> cardinalities can be defined= by means of contrast to "no": "nonai". If
>> = I had to fill the inner quantifier for "no lo xo broda" from your=
>> example, I might say "nonai".
>
> =A0 There&= #39;s no such grammatical contruct,

no nai =3D PA NAI or PA UI= =3D PA*

http://www.lojban.org/tik= i/tiki-index.php?page=3Dzasni+gerna+cenba+vreji

"NAI: Extended its grammar to that of indicators, i.e. it is allow= ed
after any word."

"nonai" would have the composi= te meaning of "other than zero". And the
set of cardinal numbe= rs which are "other than zero" seem more than
undefinable:
=A0
=A0
=A0 But that page is not canon.=A0 That's xorxes' proposed ext= ension of the grammar.
=A0
=A0

http://en.wikipedia.or= g/wiki/Cardinal_number


> but again, I would hate to think
> that you can mea= n by that negatives, or imaginary numbers.

"PA mei" = never means a negative or imaginary number, insofar as the
interlocuters= properly understand what cardinality is about.

=A0
=A0 That's fine.=A0 Like I said, if you are wiling to restrict its= domain in that way, I have no problem with that.=A0 But we already HAVE a = construct that means that, za'uno=A0 So you don't have to reinvent = the wheel.=A0 "nonai" would include things like ka'o and ni&#= 39;ure.=A0
=A0
=A0
Such 'restrictive' compo= sitions exist in other parts of the language.
For example, we don't = say "ci lo pa gerku", because, however
syntactically valid, "ci" makes no sense in the composition that = it's
in. Likewise, we shouldn't assume "nonai mei" cou= ld mean negatives or
imaginary numbers, because such are never to be in = the scope set by
"mei" in its compositional relation to the preceding PA.
=A0
=A0
=A0 But like I said, if you mean "greater than zero", than S= AY that, not "non-zero".=A0=A0 Otherwise, that's as foolish a= s saying something like "magnetic poles always come in pairs, therefor= e when I say 'three poles', I really mean 'four poles' &quo= t; (imperfect analogy, but you get my drift).=A0 "nonaimei", it&#= 39;s very true, I might not imagine might mean anything other than non-nega= tive reals, but "nonai" by itself does NOT suggest that, which is= what you previously stated. "za'uno" on the other hand, alwa= ys does.=A0 Why not use it?
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gejyspa
=A0
=A0
=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t= he Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send e= mail 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.g= oogle.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G= oogle Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email= to lojban@goo= glegroups.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.

--
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.
--0015175cb5802e6e1404a37acdb1--