From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARD-tabxBBoEQBnk3g@googlegroups.com Fri Jul 22 08:45:25 2011 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QkHuf-0002Px-8o; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:45:25 -0700 Received: by wyh13 with SMTP id 13sf4297648wyh.16 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:45:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version: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:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=oDkwZxMosNB6ANpM307S1PY/EeL4o32Nq+YIuq/lIUI=; b=r4rbVvCR938oQL8BIJ4VII6vGqZwcCfZVBpaxCA1wTrsGURtsoYLljxkTyQTczQ4/X O5sNkOfI48qN0hGUIWLXlnABhEZG3cU0Gui0uYcT+oDObprkKONJBWhpkzlOW+Sa3rKe qu7c1szWbEiqHKqpBjB2p7Rt1OxYzoOaqoWD8= Received: by 10.216.138.31 with SMTP id z31mr747946wei.15.1311349502747; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:45:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.148.144 with SMTP id v16ls282407eej.3.canary; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.98.70 with SMTP id p6mr48424ebn.13.1311349501400; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.98.70 with SMTP id p6mr48422ebn.13.1311349501366; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com (mail-fx0-f41.google.com [209.85.161.41]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e24si153903fao.1.2011.07.22.08.45.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.41; Received: by mail-fx0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 9so4487946fxg.28 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.16.136 with SMTP id o8mr2343960faa.21.1311349501197; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.93.203 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:45:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:45:01 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Meaning of multiple negations From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@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: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151740291031fe7404a8aa5904 --00151740291031fe7404a8aa5904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In any case, "full bridi scope" in this sense, when you are not using {naku= } (e.g. {.i naku broda gi'e brode}) is relative to the simple statement. x1 broda x2 =3D=3D P(x1,x2); x1 broda x2 gi'e brode x3 =3D=3D P(x1,x2) ^ Q(x1,= x2); x1 broda x2 gi'e na[i] brode x3 =3D=3D P(x1,x2) ^ ~Q(x1,x2). "Q(x1,x2)" is the "full bridi" over which the {na} scopes, again pe'i ca'e ru'e. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Johnson wrote= : > Indefinite descriptions shouldn't reduce to {da} constructs, I'm fairly > sure; they should reduce to {lo} constructs. Regardless, beginning here: > su'o da poi prenu cu ricfu gi'e na gleki > You can indeed reduce it to what you had, but that also reduces just as > well to: > su'o da poi prenu goi ko'a cu ricfu .ije ko'a na gleki > in which case the bridi with the gleki gives {na} full bridi scope. The > bridi tail connectives and forethought connectives all do this, pe'i ca'e > ru'e. The assignment is subtle, however, I agree; I'm thinking of it as > being purely syntactic, since I don't know how to quantify a prenex over > several jufra. > > > mu'o mi'e latros > > > 2011/7/22 Jorge Llamb=EDas > >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Ian Johnson >> wrote: >> > {na} has full bridi scope (which is *radically* different from how >> natlangs, >> > or at least English, work); >> >> That in itself wouldn't be a problem. More troublesome is that "full >> bridi scope" is not well defined. What would you say are the relative >> scopes of "su'o", "gi'e" and "na" in: >> >> su'o prenu cu ricfu gi'e na gleki >> >> (I say that means "su'o da poi prenu zo'u ge da ricfu gi da na gleki" >> but that puts "na" within the scope of both "su'o" and "gi'e", so no >> "full bridi scope" there.) >> >> mu'o mi'e xorxes >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group= s >> "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=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. --00151740291031fe7404a8aa5904 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In any case, "full bridi scope" in this sense, when you are not u= sing {naku} (e.g. {.i naku broda gi'e brode}) is relative to the simple= statement. x1 broda x2 =3D=3D P(x1,x2); x1 broda x2 gi'e brode x3 =3D= =3D P(x1,x2) ^ Q(x1,x2); x1 broda x2 gi'e na[i] brode x3 =3D=3D P(x1,x2= ) ^ ~Q(x1,x2). "Q(x1,x2)" is the "full bridi" over whic= h the {na} scopes, again pe'i ca'e ru'e.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Ian Johnso= n <blindbrav= ado@gmail.com> wrote:
Indefinite descriptions shouldn't reduce to {da} constructs, I'm fa= irly sure; they should reduce to {lo} constructs. Regardless, beginning her= e:
su'o da poi prenu cu ricfu gi'e na gleki
You can indeed re= duce it to what you had, but that also reduces just as well to:
su'o da poi prenu goi ko'a cu ricfu .ije ko'a na gleki
in wh= ich case the bridi with the gleki gives {na} full bridi scope. The bridi ta= il connectives and forethought connectives all do this, pe'i ca'e r= u'e. The assignment is subtle, however, I agree; I'm thinking of it= as being purely syntactic, since I don't know how to quantify a prenex= over several jufra.


mu'o mi'e latros
=A0

2011/7/22 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com= >
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrot= e:
> {na} has full bridi scope (which is *radically* different from how nat= langs,
> or at least English, work);

That in itself wouldn't be a problem. More troublesome is that &q= uot;full
bridi scope" is not well defined. What would you say are the relative<= br> scopes of "su'o", "gi'e" and "na" in:=

=A0 su'o prenu cu ricfu gi'e na gleki

(I say that means "su'o da poi prenu zo'u ge da ricfu gi da na= gleki"
but that puts "na" within the scope of both "su'o" = and "gi'e", so no
"full bridi scope" there.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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.



--
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.
--00151740291031fe7404a8aa5904--