Received: from mail-ie0-f189.google.com ([209.85.223.189]:41663)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncBDPLXXOJVIKBBBEAQSDAKGQEYGZAHTY@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Tgi44-0004wM-Dp; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:29:20 -0800
Received: by mail-ie0-f189.google.com with SMTP id c11sf4771758ieb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:28:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-ct-class:x-ct-score:x-ct-refid:x-ct-spam
         :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent
         :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=Dx4BNOfoZEzJIy0/4+XL6YcaHcZl649i3GhcFkYxq/Q=;
        b=DbN01Talb/Cm0X9usG8VEJkxksESYYghAFEA+1UdXCBgdeRTAxNLYTst13tCAGKspN
         0vHHKhzghYnX4YxPeMkbqV4HD2Oprp238MLfoHsuRH7udQ+YoyXVXB58gRt+QTdOlv8X
         Bvqg9qnD/zlqOR4l70NM5Ocz3QYeWJsOXJcpCDYgc5if2Wxi9LMvke3TC/hnEomAQ0Co
         P1hItjZqSozmqTujh6Q3od06pdjVVa1vubEq3bA2ZB5vpa6/jYY9Lp3lW2vpyQSNHMga
         PB+lhFsTZx6EscXEHo1eVCW8+hy0qzHQ1LI2xQtX8eQX9iSTldThdLGq0BcI5qUdsa79
         tfoA==
Received: by 10.49.24.13 with SMTP id q13mr648500qef.33.1354825733793;
        Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:28:53 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.49.25.41 with SMTP id z9ls1873803qef.83.gmail; Thu, 06 Dec
 2012 12:28:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.105.205 with SMTP id u13mr2478858qao.6.1354825732527;
        Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:28:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.105.205 with SMTP id u13mr2478857qao.6.1354825732515;
        Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:28:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eastrmfepo201.cox.net (eastrmfepo201.cox.net. [68.230.241.216])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id y1si1907631qco.0.2012.12.06.12.28.52;
        Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:28:52 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.216;
Received: from eastrmimpo306 ([68.230.241.238]) by eastrmfepo201.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP
          id <20121206202852.IXLT5450.eastrmfepo201.cox.net@eastrmimpo306>
          for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:28:52 -0500
Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([98.169.148.216])
	by eastrmimpo306 with cox
	id YLUr1k00N4gNKFm01LUrgW; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:28:51 -0500
X-CT-Class: Clean
X-CT-Score: 0.00
X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020209.50C10003.0222,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
X-CT-Spam: 0
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=LN3kseq9 c=1 sm=1
 a=oMUrf2L0cPa+6Alu0knKiQ==:17 a=YsUzL_8ObRgA:10 a=-plcLxmHD0QA:10
 a=xmHE3fpoGJwA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=NEw3gO7DHosA:10
 a=vnmp5AE8GGNXFrQX8Z4A:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=oMUrf2L0cPa+6Alu0knKiQ==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Message-ID: <50C10003.1080806@lojban.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:28:51 -0500
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}
References: <95cdbee4-7ddc-4f7d-bb48-4591b7c3d915@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <95cdbee4-7ddc-4f7d-bb48-4591b7c3d915@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 68.230.241.216 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for
 domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en_US>
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:googlegroups-manage+972099695765+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /
Content-Length: 2907

I think this is more appropriate for the main list.

la gleki wrote:
> Even the current grammar has two meanings of {nai}.
> Such "polysemy" (although lacking ambiguity in any case) might lead to
> inconvenience for newbies.
> Why {nai} actually means
> 1. to'e (UInai)
> 2. na (NU NAI = NU NA KU ZOhU, the same with connectives and BAI)?
>
> The proposal http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Move+NAI+to+CAI adds the third
> meaning (na'e).

There is one "meaning" - a syntactically appropriate afterthought 
negation of a single word.  The semantics of that negation are specific 
to what is being negated, but generally it is a scalar/contrary negation 
(cf. na'e) of the specific word being marked.  Sometimes the nature of 
the construct means that a scalar negation is effectively equivalent to 
a contradictory negation (cf. na) (this is especially the case for 
logical connectives, by intent).

As a scalar negation, it is NOT the equivalent of to'e when attached to 
a UI, but rather na'e (generalized rather than extreme contrary 
negation).  naicai would be the afterthought "nai"-like equivalent of 
to'e when attached to UI.  That said, sometimes a scalar situation 
degenerates to the point where to'e and na'e are equivalent in meaning. 
  The separate words exist for those situations when the scale is NOT 
degenerate.

> Next question is why {nai} should move to CAI and then to UI when UI
> have no truth value?

It shouldn't, and I have no idea why such a thing would be proposed (I 
haven't read the cited proposal, and personally don't consider any 
proposals until/unless formally brought before byfy - not that I know 
what the procedure for doing so would be these days).

We specifically considered that when solving the negation problem.  Most 
languages have oversimplified and degenerate forms of negation (probably 
because logical complexity is "inconvenient for newbies").  TLI Loglan 
does so.  Lojban specifically tried to improve on that situation.

> If so why having {to'e}, {no'e} and {na'e} and if they can be always
> optionally replaced with {nai}, {cu'i} and some experimental cmavo (e.g.
> {ne'e}) correspondingly?

They can't be so replaced, unless some proposal screws up the language 
in an attempt to oversimplify the negation problem.  Having multiple 
words allows the semantics of each situation to resolve over time with 
usage evolving the way each word is interpreted.

Note also that nai is afterthought (like UI) while the NAhE family of 
words are forethought and can be used with larger constructs than a 
single word.

lojbab

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.