Well, I'm not sure what negating a predicate means -- putting = nal- into its compound somewhere maybe -- but negating a term doesn't do th= at. It does however negate the clause of which the predicate is the c= ore. and that negation can eventually get back to a na before the predicate= , through various changes involving naku, as have been noted. As note= d, {mi citke no plise) is the same as (regularly transformable into and fro= m) {mi na citke su'o plise, all of which has nought to do with {lo}.
Why= would you assume that {mi viska zo'e} means {mi viska su'o zo'e}? Do= es {mi viska la Djan} really mean {mi viska su'o la Djan}? Yet these = are all the same type of terms and very different from, say, {su'o gerku}.<= br>

From: Luke Bergen &= lt;lukeabergen@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
= Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 6:01:50 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and default quantifiers
Hmm, I understood your following statement:

> No, because "no" contains a negation. If you say "mi citka= " you can't
> expect people to understand that you mean "mi na citka". Similarly, if=
> you say "mi citka lo plise" you can't expect anyone to understand = that
> you mean "mi citka no lo plise".

to mean = that putting {no sumti} in a bridi effectively negates the selbri such that= {mi citka no plise} =3D {mi na citka ??? plise}.

And the = general point that I was trying to make was that when we say that {lo} has = no default quantifiers what we've done is merely shifted the assumption of = what we're talking about to context.

Like you= said {lo broda} =3D {zo'e noi ke'a broda}. I understand {zo'e} as me= aning "omitted sumti which you may or may not be able to pick up on from co= ntext". So if I see {mi viska zo'e} I would assume something like {mi= viska su'o zo'e}. I certainly wouldn't assume {no} or something exot= ic (but grammatical) like {ka'o}. If {zo'e} implicitly forc= es a listener to make some assumptions then so too does {lo}

2011/5/2 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> mmm, good points. I guess what I was getting at is, just because= there are
> no default quantifiers doesn't mean that people are going to use conte= xt to
> assume them. (for example, you assume that {ro lo nanmu cu bevri= lo pipno})

No, I don't. If I assumed that each man carried the piano, then I
would conclude that at least one of them carried it too. If I was
forced to assume anything, it would be that none of them carried it by
himself. (But please don't interpret that as saying that I read "lo ci
nanmu cu bevri lo pipno" as "no lo ci nanmu cu bevri lo pipno"! Just
because two things happen to be true does not mean that they are
saying the same thing!)

> And also that seems weird. {no} is a number just like {pa}, {re}= , {su'o},
> or {so'i}. It seems weird that using it as a quantifier of a sum= ti can
> directly effect the selbri in ways that other numbers can't.

Every quantifier affects the bridi in ways that other quantifiers
don't, otherwise they would be the same quantifier.

"no ..." is equivalent to "naku su'o ..." and also equivalent to "ro ... na= ku"

"no" is not the only quantifier that contains a negation. "me'i",
"su'e" and "da'a" also do.

"me'i PA ..." is equivalent to "naku su'o PA ...", and "su'e PA ..."
is equivalent to "naku za'u PA ..."

"da'a PA ..." is equivalent to "PA ... naku"

> I understand intuitively why that is the case. But it still feel= s strange.
> I kind of have to wonder if {mi na citka lo plise} and {mi citka= no plise}
> really are identical (I know that the meanings of the statements are t= he
> same, but are the statements themselves the same as each other)

They are quite different, they have different meanings. I don't
understand why you say that I said that they were identical.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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@googlegro= ups.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.