From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRD5ytTuBBoEwnqJ5g@googlegroups.com Thu May 19 07:13:33 2011
Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRD5ytTuBBoEwnqJ5g@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1QN3yf-0006L5-6B; Thu, 19 May 2011 07:13:33 -0700
Received: by ywg8 with SMTP id 8sf2869598ywg.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 19 May 2011 07:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-smtp
         :x-ymail-osg:x-yahoo-newman-property:references:in-reply-to
         :x-apple-yahoo-original-message-folder:mime-version:message-id
         :x-mailer:from:x-apple-yahoo-replied-msgid:subject:date: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:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=BTwpmEkxPfLSN3NQ9U/kNHLFlAn8MYiJNBTf449GVgg=;
        b=eA0vkmBh8sJEzcHaZEKR2LZ/UmnB3FgsQn4KvWfsK08fr780YkT70AwSpyOjHWI7ZH
         cvnPKQ+trgWcwpl+WcFDildAOruH5VpQSkK6Wl+UOwRml5hUQfDTo6ufV5SAGGku/6ah
         13+UUxDc3mrTkkEWGER5iO6DgtjBErXC/1My0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-smtp:x-ymail-osg
         :x-yahoo-newman-property:references:in-reply-to
         :x-apple-yahoo-original-message-folder:mime-version:message-id
         :x-mailer:from:x-apple-yahoo-replied-msgid:subject:date: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:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=OU1AJ/ZDVw8kgkX8i6R2Lg08573uM/zkYEfS5u51SJVfwpkIvNNq4hqOBw30uqzoVR
         iKpcwXPGckfrci2Tx8yy4fKXlUXwfvRKcy6IGZcria1oSqQF/IOIYwFiiWaECNlNngoU
         GanA7vdkGLkRUc4qyxULqsJDO/gJPhDxoZURs=
Received: by 10.236.139.197 with SMTP id c45mr290089yhj.13.1305814393955;
        Thu, 19 May 2011 07:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.231.0.151 with SMTP id 23ls28692ibb.1.gmail; Thu, 19 May 2011
 07:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.141.7 with SMTP id m7mr886227icu.37.1305814392224;
        Thu, 19 May 2011 07:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.141.7 with SMTP id m7mr886226icu.37.1305814392200;
        Thu, 19 May 2011 07:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp113-mob.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (smtp113-mob.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.88.250])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id l15si444659icj.2.2011.05.19.07.13.11;
        Thu, 19 May 2011 07:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.88.250 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.88.250;
Received: (qmail 97269 invoked from network); 19 May 2011 14:13:11 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.68] (kali9putra@99.92.108.41 with xymcookie)
        by smtp113-mob.biz.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 May 2011 07:13:11 -0700 PDT
X-Yahoo-SMTP: xvGyF4GswBCIFKGaxf5wSjlg3RF108g-
X-YMail-OSG: GEDkRW4VM1mvhljJJ.NXBN50.wbagWFoXEIDvqAakukdi80
 zDK2JdHV_11SMI2ugkYDGkWOLWG7SvU.9Wx5fscy6kGLTythxAoDe1qTpqvP
 mYF6Is5HdReh6hECQXgpoPFeFsjXA2Jmmi7ohKJdLnknfgzwDTQnwOImtTWQ
 FQuSPLasJGAuIq_U87iGmGCSI95r6kEhBO37DKPsc4qDYqhQdFy1CzsXNjnu
 O66squbujL1ZQFlEMs17mft4TY_MXf5HfMB9urSI6tLAJ5d9mr3wUpR6IRAT
 yp1B00fo2O5c9Ibqlf4TaJ6T92IwOX7FxTW8TqomqdeineshuDqKCXw_96qP
 ODSVoO5WtZlDVmGe6jLwuz9BWJj_l7gjMarB4r8kTObMb2yrwFKV_8TPTLAN
 jk9lxUR.0YI2M2ZsqzgBsxLO2wubRW1LVEvdPKvQQcdJbqAtD752zOKWUJ6s
 peALTBcFGEJdK_SrKjDWDN0_VHPvCTE8aGAq29GlAdjs2i79oBei81gt8oVF
 mQFrLkTxMkTBQGq4LKPzYGIR1QpydaeyiRwRTtxYH0DQTnoAVz44zjrEsBq.
 PSouClW4qV1BkROcJDhP16FLJjkMUHWm5HL.TAUUwuVRzA.xWUWSIRV25l50
 -
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
References: <BANLkTikmFwk_EdSYyHhCE4J=dDNkx_-9LA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=gFF_TUMOek-fB6m2V62TGUEa0Dw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=3LdsUOwiiWBzm3EwjF2UOMDgGzg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=hb8+Pc53M-1wfoicbYSLa6xi9SQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinPQ2_aGO1Z1OVvZ4uOEbW1SMEfRw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikVow-cFYQOBAh2wZvFn=vbcy93cA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinkpsZhnFrtmC+Hb+jTBsX+GOWkog@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinNOf7au43Z5oiYfpNVfpdW8r7mZg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTim5=tNadTSqpeRRMFki3WA2VvaiYQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTimK1mJ+x5c+KeCLnOMjm1h5cbhmKA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimK1mJ+x5c+KeCLnOMjm1h5cbhmKA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Original-Message-Folder: AAlojbanery
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4)
Message-Id: <B8372FD7-DFA7-4D81-B0E6-03068A3D4270@yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4)
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
X-Apple-Yahoo-Replied-Msgid: 1_8337990_AHvHjkQAAHFyTdSB/gphhj3WVLU
Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no"
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 09:15:42 -0500
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.88.250
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary=Apple-Mail-1--1057653720
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--Apple-Mail-1--1057653720
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I suspect the wanted conversion is {no da broda} =3D {da na broda} =3D {nak=
u da broda}.

Sent from my iPad

On May 18, 2011, at 21:35, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote=
:

>=20
>=20
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:01 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 May 2011 14:54, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "is a flying tea pot" can indeed be said of nothing, i.e., "There are  =
no flying teapots" is a perfectly sensible (and true, I think) sentence.
>=20
> Does "There are no flying teapots" really say of nothing? I think it
> says of "flying teapots". It means "no flying teapots exist", where
> "flying teapots" is quantified with "no" and predicated with "exist".
>=20
>=20
> On 17 May 2011 13:11, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I say you CAN say "is-flying-teapot" of a nothing.
>=20
> "Nothing is a flying teapot"? I take notice of how it's convertible
> into an expression that says of something: "Everything is not a flying
> teapot". The same conversion is possible in Lojban:
>=20
> no da broda --> ro da na broda
>=20
>=20
>     Umm... actually, no, not under the CLL.   (although xorxes disagrees =
with their definition of bridi negation).  The following transforms are tru=
e:
> no da broda --> ro da na'e broda=20
> ro da na broda -> su'o da na'e broda
> =20
>=20
> If it weren't for this parallel -- if without an underlying
> non-nothing subject --, "nothing is a flying teapot" would have been
> nonsensical, I think. "no da broda" (saying of nothing) is neither
> true nor false independent of "ro da na broda" (saying of something).
> Can a predicate be true of absolutely nothing?
>=20
> Besides, I wonder if the form of "no da broda" is as much common as
> the form of "ro da na broda" among natural languages. Spanish "nada"
> and French "rien" can each mean "anything" rather than "nothing"
> depending on the verb's negativity.
>=20
> No veo nada.
> Je ne vois rien.
> ("I do not see anything." rather than "I see nothing".)
>=20
> Should these be translated as "mi viska no da" or "mi na viska ro da"?
>=20
>   Either "mi viska no da"  or "mi na viska su'o da".  "mi na viska ro da"=
 means it's not true that you see EVERYTHING,  there are some things you do=
n't see.
>=20
> Japanese has no equivalent form to "no da broda" (nothing is/does
> ...). They do have words for the concepts of nothingness, but they
> never use them as the subject of a positive proposition which is
> expressible in its negative parallel:
>=20
> nani-ka mie-ru --> nani-mo mie-nai.
> (zo'e se viska --> zo'e na se viska)
>=20
> This is how they would translate the English "I see nothing". "nani"
> means "anything" indicatively and "what" interrogatively, but never
> "nothing".
>=20
>=20
> > 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 rhetor=
ical
> > style to get something across.
>=20
> You could help save my repetitive effort to see the supposed logic of
> your "lo no broda" by deconstructing what you identify as its 'two
> claims' into proper predicative Lojban expressions. The same point
> down below.
>=20
>=20
>   Have already done so.  Numerous times.
> =20
>=20
> >> 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 an=
other
> > way, you have put "lo no cinta {of the paint you actually put on the wa=
lls}"
> > 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)
>=20
> Why don't you expand the two sumti into clear Lojban bridi so that we
> can more accurately diagnose their logical viability? Here's my take
> (incorporating xorxes' suggestion):
>=20
> lo no cinta {of the paint you actually put on the walls}
> --> zo'e noi cinta {poi mi ca'a punji ke'a lo bitmu ku'o} gi'e nomei
>=20
> no lo {whatever amount you intended to put} cinta
> --> no da poi cinta
>=20
>=20
> >> >> 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 =3D PA NAI or PA UI =3D PA*
> >>
> >> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=3Dzasni+gerna+cenba+vre=
ji
> >>
> >> "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.
>=20
> What canonical or more-acceptable-than-xorlo sources support your
> argument for "lo no broda"?
>=20
>   The zasni gerna cenba vreji page is NOT xorlo.  They are only xorxes' a=
dditional proposed expansions to the grammar.
> =20
> >> 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 i=
n
> > 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" w=
ould
> > include things like ka'o and ni'ure.
>=20
> To the extent that "za'uno" too can mean non-integers like "pimu",
> though, it too would have to be subjected to the said semantic
> restriction when used with "mei". So "za'uno" wouldn't be functionally
> different from "nonai".
>=20
>   a) you weren't restricting nonai use with mei. But again, saying someth=
ing should mean less than does when used in certain ways is falling into na=
tlang traps that we should be trying to avoid.
>=20
>   b)  This may be opening up another can of worms, but I'm not convinced =
that pimu shouldn't be allowed with mei.  If I am speaking of a number of o=
ranges, why can't I have a half of one?  And from that universe of one half=
 orange, I can talk about a smaller amount.  pipa lo pimu najnimre cu fusra
>=20
>=20
> =20
> I suggested "nonai" because: the sense of negation seemed more
> appropriate for my response to your argument for "no"; and I wanted to
> emphasize the contrast between nothing and something (non-nothing).
>=20
>=20
> >> 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".
>=20
> In the context of cardinality, "greater than zero" basically means "at
> least one", and "su'o" would thereby be neater than "za'uno". But I
> wanted to avoid that line of positive expressions, because earlier
> comments (especially by xorxes) suggested that "su'o" may not be
> considered a default inner quantifier for "lo broda".
>=20
>=20
>   But we aren't talking about defaults.  We are talking about explicitnes=
ses... weren't we?  So if you believe it has to be at least one, su'o would=
 do fine (although it still won't inherently restrict it to integers)=20
>               --gejyspa
>=20
> --=20
> 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@googlegr=
oups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb=
an?hl=3Den.

--=20
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.


--Apple-Mail-1--1057653720
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

<html><body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div>I suspect the wanted conversion is {no=
 da broda} =3D {da na broda} =3D {naku da broda}.</div><div><br>Sent from m=
y iPad</div><div><br>On May 18, 2011, at 21:35, Michael Turniansky &lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:mturniansky@gmail.com">mturniansky@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<b=
r><br></div><div></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br>=
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:01 PM, tijlan <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jbotijlan@gmail.com"><a href=3D"mailto:=
jbotijlan@gmail.com">jbotijlan@gmail.com</a></a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><bloc=
kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #cc=
c solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">On 17 May 2011 14:54, John E Clifford &lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:kali9putra@yahoo.com"><a href=3D"mailto:kali9putra@yahoo.com">kali9putra=
@yahoo.com</a></a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; "is a flying tea pot" can indeed be said of nothing, i.e., "There are =
&nbsp;no flying teapots" is a perfectly sensible (and true, I think) senten=
ce.<br>
<br>
</div>Does "There are no flying teapots" really say of nothing? I think it<=
br>
says of "flying teapots". It means "no flying teapots exist", where<br>
"flying teapots" is quantified with "no" and predicated with "exist".<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
<br>
On 17 May 2011 13:11, Michael Turniansky &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mturniansky@=
gmail.com"><a href=3D"mailto:mturniansky@gmail.com">mturniansky@gmail.com</=
a></a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; I say you CAN say "is-flying-teapot" of a nothing.<br>
<br>
</div>"Nothing is a flying teapot"? I take notice of how it's convertible<b=
r>
into an expression that says of something: "Everything is not a flying<br>
teapot". The same conversion is possible in Lojban:<br>
<br>
no da broda --&gt; ro da na broda<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>&nbsp; &nbsp; Umm... actually, no, not under the =
CLL. &nbsp; (although xorxes disagrees with their definition of bridi negat=
ion).&nbsp; The following transforms are true:<br>no da broda --&gt; ro da =
na'e broda <br>
ro da na broda -&gt; su'o da na'e broda<br>&nbsp;<br><br></div><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px =
solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
If it weren't for this parallel -- if without an underlying<br>
non-nothing subject --, "nothing is a flying teapot" would have been<br>
nonsensical, I think. "no da broda" (saying of nothing) is neither<br>
true nor false independent of "ro da na broda" (saying of something).<br>
Can a predicate be true of absolutely nothing?<br>
<br>
Besides, I wonder if the form of "no da broda" is as much common as<br>
the form of "ro da na broda" among natural languages. Spanish "nada"<br>
and French "rien" can each mean "anything" rather than "nothing"<br>
depending on the verb's negativity.<br>
<br>
No veo nada.<br>
Je ne vois rien.<br>
("I do not see anything." rather than "I see nothing".)<br>
<br>
Should these be translated as "mi viska no da" or "mi na viska ro da"?<br><=
/blockquote><div><br>&nbsp; Either "mi viska no da"&nbsp; or "mi na viska s=
u'o da".&nbsp; "mi na viska ro da" means it's not true that you see EVERYTH=
ING,&nbsp; there are some things you don't see.<br>
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;=
 border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Japanese has no equivalent form to "no da broda" (nothing is/does<br>
...). They do have words for the concepts of nothingness, but they<br>
never use them as the subject of a positive proposition which is<br>
expressible in its negative parallel:<br>
<br>
nani-ka mie-ru --&gt; nani-mo mie-nai.<br>
(zo'e se viska --&gt; zo'e na se viska)<br>
<br>
This is how they would translate the English "I see nothing". "nani"<br>
means "anything" indicatively and "what" interrogatively, but never<br>
<div class=3D"im">"nothing".<br>
<br>
<br>
&gt; I am not going to argue this point<br>
&gt; anymore, because you understand what I am saying, and I understand wha=
t you<br>
&gt; are saying. &nbsp;No point in going round and round here. &nbsp;Anymor=
e sentences you<br>
&gt; say on this exact point will be ignored, but do not think that the fac=
t of<br>
&gt; my ignoring them means I agree with you. &nbsp;It just means I'm sick =
of the same<br>
&gt; points being raised again and again, as if repetition is a valid rheto=
rical<br>
&gt; style to get something across.<br>
<br>
</div>You could help save my repetitive effort to see the supposed logic of=
<br>
your "lo no broda" by deconstructing what you identify as its 'two<br>
claims' into proper predicative Lojban expressions. The same point<br>
<div class=3D"im">down below.<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br>&nbsp; Have already done so.&nbsp; Numerous=
 times.<br>&nbsp;<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-le=
ft: 1ex;"><div class=3D"im">

<br>
&gt;&gt; There are cases when a reference to<br>
&gt;&gt; "non-nothing" is more meaningful than to "three things", for insta=
nce.<br>
&gt;&gt; Suppose I want to change the paint of the walls of my room by toda=
y's<br>
&gt;&gt; evening -- "I'm going to give them a new coat of paint":<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; mi ba punji lo cinta lo bitmu<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; What's important for me is that the walls will have different pain=
t<br>
&gt;&gt; than the current one -- whether one material or three hundred<br>
&gt;&gt; materials of paints, not important. Not only I'm unconcerned with =
the<br>
&gt;&gt; number of lo cinta to be applied, also this number is factually<br=
>
&gt;&gt; undetermined; not only I don't subjectively know how many lo cinta=
 I'm<br>
&gt;&gt; going to use, also there is no objective answer to "lo xo cinta" a=
s of<br>
&gt;&gt; now. It might even turn out that the wall wouldn't after all chang=
e by<br>
&gt;&gt; the evening because I had been too busy doing other things or I<br=
>
&gt;&gt; changed my own mind.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; In the last case you have not put paint on the walls, or to put=
 it another<br>
&gt; way, you have put "lo no cinta {of the paint you actually put on the w=
alls}"<br>
&gt; on the walls (or "no lo {whatever amount you intended to put} cinta" o=
n the<br>
&gt; walls. &nbsp;The statements mean two different things, but refer to th=
e same end<br>
&gt; result in the physical word)<br>
<br>
</div>Why don't you expand the two sumti into clear Lojban bridi so that we=
<br>
can more accurately diagnose their logical viability? Here's my take<br>
(incorporating xorxes' suggestion):<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
lo no cinta {of the paint you actually put on the walls}<br>
</div>--&gt; zo'e noi cinta {poi mi ca'a punji ke'a lo bitmu ku'o} gi'e nom=
ei<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
no lo {whatever amount you intended to put} cinta<br>
</div>--&gt; no da poi cinta<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; In Lojban, only "no" can exactly quantify nothing, and al=
l non-"no"<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; cardinalities can be defined by means of contrast to "no"=
: "nonai". If<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; I had to fill the inner quantifier for "no lo xo broda" f=
rom your<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; example, I might say "nonai".<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; &nbsp; There's no such grammatical contruct,<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; no nai =3D PA NAI or PA UI =3D PA*<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=3Dzasni+=
gerna+cenba+vreji" target=3D"_blank"><a href=3D"http://www.lojban.org/tiki/=
tiki-index.php?page=3Dzasni+gerna+cenba+vreji">http://www.lojban.org/tiki/t=
iki-index.php?page=3Dzasni+gerna+cenba+vreji</a></a><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; "NAI: Extended its grammar to that of indicators, i.e. it is allow=
ed<br>
&gt;&gt; after any word."<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; "nonai" would have the composite meaning of "other than zero". And=
 the<br>
&gt;&gt; set of cardinal numbers which are "other than zero" seem more than=
<br>
&gt;&gt; undefinable:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; But that page is not canon. &nbsp;That's xorxes' proposed exten=
sion of the<br>
&gt; grammar.<br>
<br>
</div>What canonical or more-acceptable-than-xorlo sources support your<br>
argument for "lo no broda"?<br>
</blockquote><div><br>&nbsp; The zasni gerna cenba vreji page is NOT xorlo.=
&nbsp; They are only xorxes' additional proposed expansions to the grammar.=
<br>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt =
0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal=
_number" target=3D"_blank"><a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal=
_number">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number</a></a><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; but again, I would hate to think<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; that you can mean by that negatives, or imaginary numbers.<br=
>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; "PA mei" never means a negative or imaginary number, insofar as th=
e<br>
&gt;&gt; interlocuters properly understand what cardinality is about.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; That's fine. &nbsp;Like I said, if you are wiling to restrict i=
ts domain in<br>
&gt; that way, I have no problem with that. &nbsp;But we already HAVE a con=
struct that<br>
&gt; means that, za'uno &nbsp;So you don't have to reinvent the wheel. &nbs=
p;"nonai" would<br>
&gt; include things like ka'o and ni'ure.<br>
<br>
</div>To the extent that "za'uno" too can mean non-integers like "pimu",<br=
>
though, it too would have to be subjected to the said semantic<br>
restriction when used with "mei". So "za'uno" wouldn't be functionally<br>
different from "nonai".<br>
<br></blockquote><div>&nbsp; a) you weren't restricting nonai use with mei.=
 But again, saying something should mean less than does when used in certai=
n ways is falling into natlang traps that we should be trying to avoid.<br>
<br>&nbsp; b)&nbsp; This may be opening up another can of worms, but I'm no=
t convinced that pimu shouldn't be allowed with mei.&nbsp; If I am speaking=
 of a number of oranges, why can't I have a half of one?&nbsp; And from tha=
t universe of one half orange, I can talk about a smaller amount.&nbsp; pip=
a lo pimu najnimre cu fusra<br>
<br></div><div><br>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); paddin=
g-left: 1ex;">
I suggested "nonai" because: the sense of negation seemed more<br>
appropriate for my response to your argument for "no"; and I wanted to<br>
emphasize the contrast between nothing and something (non-nothing).<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
<br>
&gt;&gt; Such 'restrictive' compositions exist in other parts of the langua=
ge.<br>
&gt;&gt; For example, we don't say "ci lo pa gerku", because, however<br>
&gt;&gt; syntactically valid, "ci" makes no sense in the composition that i=
t's<br>
&gt;&gt; in. Likewise, we shouldn't assume "nonai mei" could mean negatives=
 or<br>
&gt;&gt; imaginary numbers, because such are never to be in the scope set b=
y<br>
&gt;&gt; "mei" in its compositional relation to the preceding PA.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; But like I said, if you mean "greater than zero", than SAY that=
, not<br>
&gt; "non-zero".<br>
<br>
</div>In the context of cardinality, "greater than zero" basically means "a=
t<br>
least one", and "su'o" would thereby be neater than "za'uno". But I<br>
wanted to avoid that line of positive expressions, because earlier<br>
comments (especially by xorxes) suggested that "su'o" may not be<br>
considered a default inner quantifier for "lo broda".<br>
<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>&nb=
sp; But we aren't talking about defaults.&nbsp; We are talking about explic=
itnesses... weren't we?&nbsp; So if you believe it has to be at least one, =
su'o would do fine (although it still won't inherently restrict it to integ=
ers) <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp; --gejyspa<br><br></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsu=
bscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>

For more options, visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/g=
roup/lojban?hl=3Den">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den</a>.<br>


</div></blockquote></body></html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



--Apple-Mail-1--1057653720--