As it's still a BPFK thread my= question is why did you suggest moving {nai} to UI in the long run when it= shouldn't have the truth value?

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 6= :16:17 PM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:35 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, I want all types of negation to fit on the same scheme.
> Last time when I draw a similar scheme I could completely solve (a= t least
> for myself) the problem of subjunctives in lojban.
> Now it's time for negation.

Negation is acheved with "na" or "na'e". They b= oth have the same
meaning, just different scopes. "na'e" can pretty much be= replaced
with "me lo na" and "na" can pretty much be replace= d with "na'e ke ...
ke'e be ... bei ... bei ...".

"to'e" is not really negation, it is "opposite"= or "antonym":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposite_(semantics)
Calling it "negation" is just one of those weird Lojbanic
eccentricities. "no'e" expresses the midpoint between som= ething and
its opposite, so it only really works with gradable antonyms.

"na'i" is a kind of negation, although what it negates is= not explicit
in the discourse. It negates a presupposition, something that is taken
for granted as true, and therefore is not expressed. So na'i says t= hat
a sentence cannot be evaluated as either true or false because
something prior that needs to be satisfied to even make sense of the
sentence is not being satisfied. Once the presupposition is expressed
explicitly, it can be negated with "na", as usual. "na&#= 39;i" just
indicates that there is something unexpressed that wants to be
negated. So "na'i" is a metalinguistic "na".

"nai" changes the meaning of the preceding word to something = with the
same function but different meaning, usually but not always an
opposite meaning. ".enai" for example is not really the oppos= ite of
".e" (indeed it is not clear what the opposite of ".e&qu= ot; would be, not
every word has a clear opposite). ".enai" is a logical connec= tive
whose truth table is related to the truth table of ".e" in so= me
systematic way that can be explained using negation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-lis= t/-/zD0_g6AhdRgJ.
=20 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=3Den.