Received: from mail-ie0-f189.google.com ([209.85.223.189]:40311) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Thh2l-0001Vc-Ak; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:35:54 -0800 Received: by mail-ie0-f189.google.com with SMTP id c11sf1528185ieb.16 for ; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:35:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender: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=k0aR8rTwdixxwOexnaGvqeC0uhoQA2foHAl1faUOsRk=; b=kjfMxpMFtIXZP9lqHMhFVKYoo307JvzMvPvK8GZLaC9hzb9iEEvc8+T/OlhcfeUt2S 3oBEz45ImgYE2ZjhjIKudaiHzaduSydtTsECJaN69+S0zawNZnh+RFCgpaKE1U8srqzy sEWLi0EaiKlxL2TLVKoqCuZ0G3MMRuvqBlnfeWv9CGw9P6bJdrHrq3HyxXmbWZZY2DSV zeYHKkJ6DdMv2dksRTKf4FLFb/6b9oIuLcEXYf5Ty1ibCCl84MWJGwQhUrr2ux3iJpQw oBf2zPzhSckflscg/aSjYqnEKgH6l3F1kRdLVkgZxxRByh8tkwH7zS8/YYCRVu2oZb6w V2FA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender: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=k0aR8rTwdixxwOexnaGvqeC0uhoQA2foHAl1faUOsRk=; b=E77gjUcIuqKi79LFhQYl1lNsLEmysrGv6xKhf0tXIM1vTKT+4fpGLZeMzygcqCZ5Mf jNOZqJbShmQ1+cg4mv1UBi/zoYqAd13yQa+mqSsQ/axIDThVGtW9NMaLRsdGHUqmxBo5 KRbaXDSdLbqhdQXBAA984zFSl/J2ESo9wxSkeDqgsZkuSwwUVusUOPftLi7f71rjybyH MOKse89himUn6wiPFc29+ByQ4Ss9KPNwO1S7D0v0krGojjhitwzjqseKhcCiBp5gal4+ hSPAJ3d4OnBNpKH6GZz/R1hnVVo/Xp9On2bOj2Dz5AK6HsJhGoBMYMtAMv/x0nHTB5uM 3ZSg== Received: by 10.49.15.100 with SMTP id w4mr2525382qec.26.1355060136683; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:35:36 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.39.234 with SMTP id s10ls3256545qek.32.gmail; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:35:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.58.167 with SMTP id s7mr2491789qeq.5.1355060136490; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:35:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 05:35:36 -0800 (PST) From: la gleki To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <5f510bca-668c-405a-9fbd-78fbcf8da281@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: <95cdbee4-7ddc-4f7d-bb48-4591b7c3d915@googlegroups.com> <50C10003.1080806@lojban.org> <5406c1d2-ee78-4b41-ab68-06b7cf99dce7@googlegroups.com> <20121208182108.GI30125@mercury.ccil.org> <20121208194909.GK30125@mercury.ccil.org> <-2630662732168703446@unknownmsgid> <20121209025300.GF10989@mercury.ccil.org> Subject: Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai} MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_181_29011884.1355060136041" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Content-Length: 4736 ------=_Part_181_29011884.1355060136041 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Now I clearly understand your definition of {na} here. And I guess J.Cowan disagrees with it. On Sunday, December 9, 2012 4:44:44 PM UTC+4, xorxes wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 9:07 AM, la gleki > > wrote: > > 1. {lo zmiku cu na'e xendo} is a false statement. Robots can't be > > kind/unkind or in the middle of that scale. The scale just cannot be > > applied. > > In which case, rather than saying that it is false, it might be better > to say "na'i", the statement can't be evaluated as true or false. > > > 2. {lo zmiku cu na [ja'e] xendo}={lo zmiku cu na na'e xendo}={lo zmiku > cu na > > to'e xendo} is a true statement. The scale is denied. > > None of those three statements deny that the scale is applicable, each > of them denies that robots fall in some part of the scale. > You would need "lo zmiku ge na xendo gi nai na'e xendo" to deny the whole > scale. > > > However, not taking into account the lack of the truth value in {na'i} > the > > second example is the same to me as > > 3. {lo zmiku cu xendo na'i} > > "na'i" by itself is not all that informative though. It says that > something is wrong with the assumptions of the statement, but there > are usually many things that could go wrong so you would probably need > to follow it with an explanation. You could say: > > lo zmiku cu xendo na'i .i zy ge nai xendo gi nai na'e xendo > > or: > > lo zmiku cu xendo na'i .i zy na ka'e se merli fi lo ka xendo > > or: > > lo zmiku cu xendo na'i .i zy klani no da lo ka xendo > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/-/5DjfpAOq5Y0J. 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. ------=_Part_181_29011884.1355060136041 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Now I clearly understand your definition of {na} here.

And I guess J= .Cowan disagrees with it.

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 4:44:44 PM UT= C+4, xorxes wrote:
On Sun, Dec = 9, 2012 at 9:07 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. {lo zmiku cu na'e xendo} is a false statement. Robots can't be
> kind/unkind or in the middle of that scale. The scale just cannot = be
> applied.

In which case, rather than saying that it is false, it might be better
to say "na'i", the statement can't be evaluated as true or false.

> 2. {lo zmiku cu na [ja'e] xendo}=3D{lo zmiku cu na na'e xendo}=3D{= lo zmiku cu na
> to'e xendo} is a true statement. The scale is denied.

None of those three statements deny that the scale is applicable, each
of them denies that robots fall in some part of the scale.
You would need "lo zmiku ge na xendo gi nai na'e xendo" to deny the who= le scale.

> However, not taking into account the lack of the truth value in {n= a'i} the
> second example is the same to me as
> 3. {lo zmiku cu xendo na'i}

"na'i" by itself is not all that informative though. It says that
something is wrong with the assumptions of the statement, but there
are usually many things that could go wrong so you would probably need
to follow it with an explanation. You could say:

lo zmiku cu xendo na'i .i zy ge nai xendo gi nai na'e xendo

or:

lo zmiku cu xendo na'i .i zy na ka'e se merli fi lo ka xendo

or:

lo zmiku cu xendo na'i .i zy klani no da lo ka xendo

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-lis= t/-/5DjfpAOq5Y0J.
=20 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.
------=_Part_181_29011884.1355060136041--