From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRCz-tnuBBoELA880g@googlegroups.com Fri May 20 07:40:04 2011 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QNQru-0002Ap-CA; Fri, 20 May 2011 07:40:03 -0700 Received: by ywg8 with SMTP id 8sf4137979ywg.16 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 07:39:52 -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-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id:message-id:x-ymail-osg :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :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=OTBuW4K/rsiIg1maXX4s1FWiuP45OGubxL2keTHacrU=; b=4fY8QccklnBQ0TeBPLyWON7VmdCIForyf6TNoT8gaSIxP7UtKPmHcbX5+80tDOj8Mg +f5Mr1nvYV4l+zqm9Bz892FdqR44BzFcl4N+TJd2FYjcfZiplVfIt0m2/esw7l8CioF8 6kL4RsTCfYXSsTdxgErSaYcak+luKO5f8gBaM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to :in-reply-to:mime-version: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=IdvKRATJN+7W1Iv4rHtfdsNufq7YUFoahSgz30QatS2BnH19mnkRCR5PS3SlbilUjX cDgvxDhw7ifCncmqm0DcXq2PKNLkr2OrRoEtyhAEhBhI3zeJKn4HFfik9uIiIaWdtA9w I4btA/RNwx4ay7qxGqp+7+sTo35puGFQao0KQ= Received: by 10.101.157.7 with SMTP id j7mr446319ano.37.1305902387732; Fri, 20 May 2011 07:39:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.212.20 with SMTP id o20ls336620anq.3.gmail; Fri, 20 May 2011 07:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.97.12 with SMTP id z12mr1862845anl.15.1305902386895; Fri, 20 May 2011 07:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.101.97.12 with SMTP id z12mr1862843anl.15.1305902386875; Fri, 20 May 2011 07:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm8-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm8-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.248]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id c32si2857742anc.0.2011.05.20.07.39.46; Fri, 20 May 2011 07:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.237.248 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.237.248; Received: from [66.94.237.199] by nm8.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 May 2011 14:39:46 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.115] by tm10.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 May 2011 14:39:46 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1020.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 May 2011 14:39:46 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 459737.28387.bm@omp1020.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 59452 invoked by uid 60001); 20 May 2011 14:39:46 -0000 Message-ID: <217730.28216.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: hFrMO_gVM1msipdPeKGKl0ShvIT5czVLYsDSTp6Doe9KVL5 KQThzB.rDjwiUKhfkP_bTd.VRaMaRa96P6GrXC6J6_0piz1K.JBSaQd6djr9 bMzirEd7lCV1FMYcgx0B9hJ3dP5MF8UfpSK8A00Kd4OxhBvkQOHeAIjuO5hP 4B7MvA9rlA7WmWxfE9lrjJV68qwra.SmZnyYeNjNCxpKK3Wjf8SMqgQfbRJu CwnG4j0yRSSs5wSnxm.q_sPafNygo85_sl8vlm5gmDSYKPrXODqh5Fr7EqBA sDWjpF6_Tonpt7aSe7El4AcRJhb_3e5rmZI7prqTaPg.FHMf8zOUTlPo27o1 RTUUEXK7.tApqzJK8kyhOHxzHxMUqWCeHB.zfRWmDSv6zZQYEWLPuzUN8H_M HpqGuqUn2Z_Y3nm1Q6Kz2mbQhfUz4bb0VvNaQroIbfcu7qALOfI9dAAsHyAH T8Csy0xDujMB1imtKGyc2j34NLWZRoU6v3I1qgVL5Pj5EoG7eWh.rhNptzih ADh0XUcJyNhLC2IkrU0KgNj2e1W0VU2PbnZgQoxNA6aF4TfYyXZKrz4XrRIE FqADG6w-- Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 20 May 2011 07:39:46 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/567 YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.303096 References: Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 07:39:46 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no" To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 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 66.94.237.248 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Just a couple of notes. "anything" in English is a universal quantifier with a well-defined context rule -- mainly negative (including conditional). In those contexts, it is a universal of broadest scope, i.e., it includes, not is included by, the negative context. Generally speaking then, if confined to its context (the negative), it is a particular quantifier. {su'o}. Lojban {ro} does not have this context leaping character bur is just what it appears to be even in the scope of a negative. So, "I don't see anything" is either {mi na viska (su'o) da} or {ro da [I forget the offsetter] mi na viska da} but certainly not {mi na viska ro da}. You can, of course, leave the universal in place if you shift the negation instead: {mi viska ro da naku} or {mi na'e viska ro da} ----- Original Message ---- From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 3:35:14 AM Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no" 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 >> > > Umm... actually, no, not under the CLL. (although xorxes disagrees > with their definition of bridi negation). 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"? > > 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 > 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). >> > But that page is not canon. That's xorxes' proposed extension 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. 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". >> > a) you weren't restricting nonai use with mei. But again, saying something > should mean less than does when used in certain ways is falling into natlang > 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. > 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 > oranges, 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 "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". >> > > But we aren't talking about defaults. 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 -- 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.