From lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBDDz9juBBoEraCYyQ@googlegroups.com Fri May 20 01:35:32 2011 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QNLB9-0004XC-62; Fri, 20 May 2011 01:35:32 -0700 Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5sf6266142qwh.16 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 01:35:20 -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:sender :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:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ckJRvB+eo65W7y+MMp5tUWiNtVbdiMcOHBHrZHZ30jY=; b=HXyrMPOZWrUqpG9AaUXEZb2ZQeYxjnhjKBhxwEFK0oKOX8SOn+ali2ydF/seTAepJs lWnUXfAaZ7nnXv49/5VyK0/pVT2eJX+f6F+tMM0+5z+VUvkRF1aoDZ0aHN7NMwfurWpu HqYphXE5C1K1JcuDXzJteCPYm02w/e7k/Q1Gg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender: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 :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=2JsAv0LH4EhNgEzbzYjClcvnjvP3Yn4dvzoUG9bCxQ5gLgxSomC2wUdtYiySZkiihR qa3zug99alNVrG3aGuhuCdW6XELD5zcMmihdx/QlANxS1FGhjuFoUpL4oPCkPayVNdkz MYCCm3An1JQ7ZpLTRWd4LVpAAIhocKJX/gi4M= Received: by 10.229.99.13 with SMTP id s13mr415068qcn.17.1305880515688; Fri, 20 May 2011 01:35:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.187.145 with SMTP id cw17ls345492qab.2.gmail; Fri, 20 May 2011 01:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.136.18 with SMTP id p18mr387574qat.10.1305880515220; Fri, 20 May 2011 01:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.136.18 with SMTP id p18mr387573qat.10.1305880515205; Fri, 20 May 2011 01:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f45.google.com (mail-qw0-f45.google.com [209.85.216.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c2si1673908qca.0.2011.05.20.01.35.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 20 May 2011 01:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.45; Received: by qwj8 with SMTP id 8so2037015qwj.4 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 01:35:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.61.7 with SMTP id r7mr3173923qch.20.1305880514920; Fri, 20 May 2011 01:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.29.74 with HTTP; Fri, 20 May 2011 01:35:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 09:35:14 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no" 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 209.85.216.45 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 19 May 2011 03:35, Michael Turniansky wrote: >> On 17 May 2011 13:11, Michael Turniansky 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 >> > > =A0 =A0 Umm... actually, no, not under the CLL. =A0 (although xorxes disa= grees > with their definition of bridi negation).=A0 The following transforms are > true: > no da broda --> ro da na'e broda > ro da na broda -> su'o da na'e broda "no da broda" has the implicit bridi affirmer, "ja'a"; why would this binary NA become a non-binary (scalar) NAhE rather than the binary opposite ("na")? Consider the following non-metaphoric pair: no tanjo cu [ja'a] glare --> ro tanjo cu na'e glare The first one is commonsensically true: no tangent is literally hot. In the second one, "na'e glare" is best understood to point to some value on the scale between the two obvious extremes, "glare" and "lenku", but excluding values on "glare", i.e. to mean some non-glare temperature. It doesn't make sense that every tangent has such a property, at all. Every tangent has no temperature; na glare, na lenku. We shouldn't mix up NA with NAhE. And "no/ro" are most correlative with "ja'a/na" of NA. >> 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"? > > =A0 Either "mi viska no da"=A0 or "mi na viska su'o da".=A0 "mi na viska = ro da" > means it's not true that you see EVERYTHING,=A0 there are some things you > don't see. As far as what the natlang sentences literally mean, it is the case that "it's not true that I see everything". "anything" in a negative expression is an idiomatic term for "everything"; both correspond to "ro da". "mi na viska ro da" may be a literal translation of "I do not see anything". If "mi" isn't completely blind, however, there must be some things which "mi" can see. The problem is the use of unrestricted "anything/everything" on the natlang part. The same with "nothing"; "I see nothing" doesn't necessarily mean that there is nothing which I can see at all. My point, anyway, was that "nothing is/does ..." (saying of nothing) may not be more basic and universal a form than "everything/anything is/does ..." (saying of something). Every expression with "nothing" seems to be convertible into an expression with "everything"; and when "everything" is not entirely accurate as in "I do not see everything (while not completely blind)", the same inaccuracy can be found in "I see nothing (while not completely blind)". So I wonder if any statement with "nothing" has any truth independent of its "everything" counterpart. If it isn't so independent, we can't really say of nothing in its own right (although we can talk about the concept of the *set* which has nothing, i.e. the set which doesn't have everything). >> > =A0 But that page is not canon. =A0That's xorxes' proposed extension o= f the >> > grammar. >> >> What canonical or more-acceptable-than-xorlo sources support your >> argument for "lo no broda"? > > =A0 The zasni gerna cenba vreji page is NOT xorlo.=A0 They are only xorxe= s' > additional proposed expansions to the grammar. I know. I meant the xorlo definition of "lo broda", to which I was comparing your "lo no broda". You implied that the basis for "nonai" is unsatisfactory because it's not canonical, so I wondered whether your own reasoning for "lo no broda" could be considered any more satisfactory by the same standard you implicitly invoked. >> 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". >> > =A0 a) you weren't restricting nonai use with mei. But again, saying some= thing > should mean less than does when used in certain ways is falling into natl= ang > traps that we should be trying to avoid. ro lo ki'o gerku cu ro roi cmoni -- Does the latter "ro" mean as many as the former? so'i lo ki'o gerku cu batci so'i prenu -- Does the latter "so'i" mean as many as the former? These inexact PA are context-dependent -- the number is determined compositionally. Would be the same for "nonai". Other examples of dynamic meaning include "le ninmu na ninmu". This particular sumti from "ninmu" means less than what the brivla's definition says it means, due to "le". And "le" doesn't so much specify the meaning for which "ninmu" is changed, whereas "mei" may specify the kind of numbers the preceding PA may be interpreted as. So I don't see why "nonai mei" would be any more undesirable than "le ninmu" in how the modified word means less than what it otherwise does. > =A0 b)=A0 This may be opening up another can of worms, but I'm not convin= ced > that pimu shouldn't be allowed with mei.=A0 If I am speaking of a number = of > oranges, why can't I have a half of one?=A0 And from that universe of one= half > orange, I can talk about a smaller amount.=A0 pipa lo pimu najnimre cu fu= sra "A half of one" states that "one" is cardinal to "a half", i.e. you can't have "a half" without "one" of which to leave the other half. As far as "mei" is concerned, "pipa", "pimu", "cipiso", etc. are derivatives from elementary cardinal numbers (0, 1, 2, 3...). And there is at least one logical reason why we shouldn't use such derivatives as an inner quantifier, as a proper cardinality value of something. We must be wary of the fallacy of division: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division Consider this example: lo pimu vinji Can we safely say a 1/2 'airplane' is an airplane with vinji2 and vinji3 (i.e. a full-fledged vinji1)? A part of something doesn't necessarily inherit all properties of that whole. If lo broda lacks certain properties that define lo brode, lo broda may not be identified as lo brode, any more than it can be *associated* with lo brode. We can avoid this issue by not messing up the cardinality & reference of "lo vinji" itself and instead outer-quantifying it: pimu lo vinji pipa lo pimu lo vinji Alternatively: lo xadba be lo vinji pipa lo xadba be lo vinji (Note that "lo xadba be ...", unlike "pimu lo ...", can be pamei, remei, cimei, etc. in its own right.) >> 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". >> > > =A0 But we aren't talking about defaults.=A0 We are talking about > explicitnesses... 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) We are talking about whether or not it's possible for "lo broda" to have "no" as its inner quantifier (to be nomei). That possibility isn't acknowledged by xorlo, according to which the referent of "lo broda" (the x1 of selbri in general) is to be considered more than nothing. This entails that any inner quantifier of "lo broda" be other than "no" by default. There is this certain default sense that the inner PA can't be "no", and that mathematically points to "za'uno" or "su'o". Should either of these be the default inner quantifier, then? I'm not sure, insofar as I respect the xorlo-proposer's opinion. mu'o --=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.