Received: from mail-oa0-f61.google.com ([209.85.219.61]:51084)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncBCOZJTMR5YGRBWM6R2DAKGQEDC4RNAQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1ThPhw-0005h6-Mb; Sat, 08 Dec 2012 11:05:27 -0800
Received: by mail-oa0-f61.google.com with SMTP id o6sf1055399oag.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 08 Dec 2012 11:04:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=Y6WO7D5bn52X0uv7x11D2/VweBuC0bXfMNxuQgZX+9g=;
        b=sRuCX/bRby9wlWylt/bUuqil0zRyVwmEOcyjW0cDEJ+nxLLProY2x6KVNzzqtX/ftA
         vc5gKumsXL74JxQpMIv3YOax1OlYBomCXsw3O597NUP0Lolxxd2/NxgkENU7HAA+V152
         cKBEIJQMTYj9yPD4vjwQxa/XQA3059exHcBq8xHjv9kql0XFVubbyWxqJFHcboFdKtqP
         6U3SB0Yw0wt/aO3/LctpaUk2TDGtcJ67Wgn386MUXggx+aC5lJJsk68O2zlZyEDS/ax+
         v4SokkUus+UflrEoZCUuEb9akX4mU5P4+QI/G6HhnahSR4DgJ+yrJ/uSZ21RM0Qop22p
         AGWA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=Y6WO7D5bn52X0uv7x11D2/VweBuC0bXfMNxuQgZX+9g=;
        b=clgXNrphbAzEWzlm3WarLoZxTCnbUWmyPKKczayknhDYyDyPFHDElYTf9FVlilYjtT
         UOhWSACV4Ie6EawDG8HsPGrXiMw2z3Njn/j/nSBNQxUf9kCgnxcc1iRuKR7saXy+1DE1
         n3Bh/7TjqtL7glJscqJ6dX+VhlnsdjdjDYdUWC4GHeNkwmmb4fhLeUIQxA+wS0pj3K5P
         6BN/TKmXUqYuxc4esgMo7rzh3gBlSMygYduEuCAjoQTbZvgU1B3RfK15vF87MyyStraS
         5yveOYd3GW3a5u8KNovgYFHygJfIQBTDMg4xg7Ug/Gc7+NfSNKEAPHosXsT0TVSFCNQj
         PnZw==
Received: by 10.50.181.234 with SMTP id dz10mr1060011igc.6.1354993497641;
        Sat, 08 Dec 2012 11:04:57 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.188.170 with SMTP id gb10ls583371igc.16.gmail; Sat, 08 Dec
 2012 11:04:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.217.69 with SMTP id ow5mr1801328pbc.0.1354993496812;
        Sat, 08 Dec 2012 11:04:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.217.69 with SMTP id ow5mr1801327pbc.0.1354993496802;
        Sat, 08 Dec 2012 11:04:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id yl8si3120579pbc.1.2012.12.08.11.04.56
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 08 Dec 2012 11:04:56 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.54;
Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id wz12so971445pbc.41
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 08 Dec 2012 11:04:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.66.82.162 with SMTP id j2mr11587058pay.13.1354993496705; Sat,
 08 Dec 2012 11:04:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.66.88.200 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:04:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20121208182108.GI30125@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <95cdbee4-7ddc-4f7d-bb48-4591b7c3d915@googlegroups.com>
	<50C10003.1080806@lojban.org>
	<5406c1d2-ee78-4b41-ab68-06b7cf99dce7@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2cyQEHTbnSkMnZBwZakreVSq4Q+_EdVQHmhv9Q8O5ao8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121208182108.GI30125@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:04:56 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2e3_rjxi5j7-T6r_ivVEbdFtehJpzeS3QMdRAMaCsFXKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.54 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /
Content-Length: 3763

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:21 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Jorge Llamb=EDas scripsit:
>
>> Negation is acheved with "na" or "na'e". They both have the same
>> meaning, just different scopes. "na'e" can pretty much be replaced
>> with "me lo na" and "na" can pretty much be replaced with "na'e ke ...
>> ke'e be ... bei ... bei ...".
>
> This is not at all the case.
>
> "mi na klama le zarci" means that it's false that I go to the store, and
> nothing more.  It does not affirm anything.  "mi na'e klama le zarci"
> means that I do have some relationship to the store that is related on
> a scale to "going".  Perhaps I am coming from the store.  At any rate,
> something is being affirmed.

I don't think you can use "mi na'e klama le zarci" to affirm that you
are coming from the store. You can only use it to affirm that the
relationship between you and the store, whatever that relationship may
be, is other than "klama". That's not really saying anything different
from "mi na klama le zarci". If you are coming from the store, both
"mi na'e klama le zarci" and "mi na klama le zarci" are true, but
neither affirms that you are coming from the store.

A better example for what you mean may be something like "lo du'u
carvi na blanu" vs. "lo du'u carvi na'e blanu", where you could argue
that the first is true (because propositions don't have colors) while
the second must be false, because presumably you would be saying that
a proposition is of some color other than blue. But other than such
nonsense sentences, there really is no difference (besides scope)
between "na" and "na'e". Both "lo du'u carvi na blanu" and "lo du'u
carvi na'e blanu" fail even before considering their truth value
because they involve inappropriate scales for the objects in question.
If you prefer, I will say that "na" and "na'e" have the same meaning
(leaving aside scope issues) whenever they are used with predicates
appropriate for their arguments.

>> "nai" should be moved to CAI because it does the same as other CAI's,
>> it takes a word and changes it into something with the same function
>> and a systematically related meaning.
>
> I've just shown that it's *not* systematically related.  Sometimes it is
> mere contradictory negation, sometimes it is scalar negation, and sometim=
es
> it is polar negation.

".enai" is not any of those with respect to ".e". ".enai" is a logical
connective with truth table "0 1 0 0" as opposed to truth table "1 0 0
0" for ".e".  In fact the closest to contradictory negation of ".e" is
"na.anai", with truth table "0 1 1 1" not ".enai".

By systematically I meant it follows a pattern in how it changes words
with the same function. I agree it is not possible to follow the same
pattern for words with wildly different functions such as, for
instance, ".e" and "ui".

> Allowing "nai" to be attached to any word would
> indeed require a systematic relationship between the word and its
> counterpart with "nai", but that contradicts both the Red Book and usage.

There is some usage of "nai" with words other than those officially
allowed, but yes, allowing "nai" after any word would of course
contradict the CLL.

> "nai" is a convenience feature, which is why the grammar only allows it i=
n
> well-defined places.

Why would its being a convenience feature prevent it from being
allowed with every word? It would then be even more convenient.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20
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@googleg=
roups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l=
ist?hl=3Den.