Oh, and =3D {ro da naku broda}

From: John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com&= gt;
To: "lojban@googleg= roups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, May 19, 2011 9:15:42 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no"

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

Sent from my iPad

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

= On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:01 PM, tijlan <jbotijla= n@gmail.com> wrote:

On 17 May 2011 14:54, John E Clifford <kali9p= utra@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) senten= ce.

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
"flying teapots" is quantified with "no" and predicated with "exist".

On 17 May 2011 13:11, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail= .com> wrote:
> I say you CAN say "is-flying-teapot" of a nothing.

"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:

no da broda --> ro da na broda

Umm... actually, no, not under the = CLL. (although xorxes disagrees with their definition of bridi negat= ion). The following transforms are true:
no da broda --> ro da = na'e broda
ro da na broda -> su'o da na'e broda

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?

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.

No veo nada.
Je ne vois rien.
("I do not see anything." rather than "I see nothing".)

Should these be translated as "mi viska no da" or "mi na viska ro da"?
<= /blockquote>

Either "mi viska no da" or "mi na viska s= u'o da". "mi na viska ro da" means it's not true that you see EVERYTH= ING, there are some things you don't see.

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:

nani-ka mie-ru --> nani-mo mie-nai.
(zo'e se viska --> zo'e na se viska)

This is how they would translate the English "I see nothing". "nani"
means "anything" indicatively and "what" interrogatively, but never

"nothing".

> I am not going to argue this point
> anymore, because you understand what I am saying, and I understand wha= t you
> are saying. No point in going round and round here. Anymor= e 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. It just means I'm sick = of the same
> points being raised again and again, as if repetition is a valid rheto= rical
> style to get something across.

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.

Have already done so. Numerous= times.

>> There are cases when a reference to
>> "non-nothing" is more meaningful than to "three things", for insta= nce.
>> Suppose I want to change the paint of the walls of my room by toda= y'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 pain= t
>> 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" a= s of
>> now. It might even turn out that the wall wouldn't after all chang= e 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 w= alls}"
> on the walls (or "no lo {whatever amount you intended to put} cinta" o= n the
> walls. The statements mean two different things, but refer to th= e same end
> result in the physical word)

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):

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 nom= ei

no lo {whatever amount you intended to put} cinta

--> no da poi cinta

>> >> In Lojban, only "no" can exactly quantify nothing, and al= l 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" f= rom 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+vreji
>>
>> "NAI: Extended its grammar to that of indicators, i.e. it is allow= ed
>> 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 exten= sion of the
> grammar.

What canonical or more-acceptable-than-xorlo sources support your
argument for "lo no broda"?

The zasni gerna cenba vreji page is NOT xorlo.= They are only xorxes' additional proposed expansions to the grammar.=

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca= rdinal_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 th= e
>> interlocuters properly understand what cardinality is about.
>>
>
> That's fine. Like I said, if you are wiling to restrict i= ts domain in
> that way, I have no problem with that. But we already HAVE a con= struct that
> means that, za'uno So you don't have to reinvent the wheel. &nbs= p;"nonai" would
> include things like ka'o and ni'ure.

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".

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.

b) This may be opening up another can of worms, but I'm no= t convinced that pimu shouldn't be allowed with mei. If I am speaking= of a number of oranges, why can't I have a half of one? And from tha= t universe of one half orange, I can talk about a smaller amount. pip= a lo pimu najnimre cu fusra

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).

>> Such 'restrictive' compositions exist in other parts of the langua= ge.
>> For example, we don't say "ci lo pa gerku", because, however
>> syntactically valid, "ci" makes no sense in the composition that i= t'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 b= y
>> "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".

In the context of cardinality, "greater than zero" basically means "a= t
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".

&nb= sp; But we aren't talking about defaults. We are talking about explic= itnesses... 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 integ= ers)
&nb= sp; --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/lojba= n?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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.