Received: from mail-qa0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]:64587) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Thh7u-0001XV-9s; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:41:12 -0800 Received: by mail-qa0-f61.google.com with SMTP id hg5sf439351qab.16 for ; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:40:55 -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=rzOjRXoVXXLpPUVvMygtDzuo/utKb2JhdiIHaCNtvwc=; b=tRz41v5fogCyQFAWUIdvefpD/GNt2/vtBcFcQZKEDtNQKNin9x28XV0Usf0jkWMXNm lxLWh5FctE/DLNO5nLePHbRFChCdUGBqh0fRxLO/VtmQGzfvTHUADsxAZWYQ1MHT8Mw1 iZO8Lt/abh82vcQ0O1q6CovjsqZdfE0mGYPJsBv8wszlLHHkeGkFkyKMoDWJQ5PcayRw lAA8s6xREBzg29YcdiSdqdFRCQXRZtu2NfMrgPOKjlwuLPnaVMYpvpM5Jq7aq9bb1oa8 f2sJFAYjTlkulDLH6UBgZZ3FS3g6ThWz3GUvE+cd6BY8CafszOxYKCbcjNVMUpCv6tG4 W0Ag== 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=rzOjRXoVXXLpPUVvMygtDzuo/utKb2JhdiIHaCNtvwc=; b=e69ZklHzeAMDyY26yaBVD+1al9mmJcbLj6g27IB1O20VYdxkIRzDhVvEEJApPOwYxa Uy3gubGqrhfvCp6Aw6lfmAbL0WG2rPxSdVhYIWb8XSRijm2v0LKEBGfc6BRDubP/0AfJ Y7yQ3rt0DtMgxxG4Xb/g9rlLNzAgvDRmay8LW9GZXKkmf/qQjmXTjyYMDEjLrgNlz8D4 GIsMdNWWlP7x9RHhCRDwT9GZEXQVoVmcj9C0Ug2XOUl0FmvPVC8aiYkTu3zyOVGoOTNO hHPFSLuN+cx1TWbVaXg8udKfndy2GLkx+FOHVj5Ss3krfBoFXR7MGPtCh10W1R7TwU3t 2ohA== Received: by 10.49.15.6 with SMTP id t6mr2427753qec.20.1355060455707; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:40:55 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.87.72 with SMTP id v8ls3393753qez.78.gmail; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:40:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.15.100 with SMTP id w4mr2527845qec.26.1355060455372; Sun, 09 Dec 2012 05:40:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 05:40:53 -0800 (PST) From: la gleki To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <04ba6438-f7aa-4bbe-adc5-6b0da80e699b@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> 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_4_30775981.1355060453711" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Content-Length: 6536 ------=_Part_4_30775981.1355060453711 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sunday, December 9, 2012 5:17:55 PM UTC+4, xorxes wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:09 AM, la gleki > > wrote: > > doi xorxes, I really think that {nai} shouldn't be moved anywhere. It > > complicates the grammar for newbies, because it makes semantics not > obvious. > > So simplifying the grammar means nothing here. > > I have been a Lojbanist for I lost count of how many years, And I respect you. > and I > could not tell you with any certainty, without checking with the > grammar, all the selma'o that can be followed with NAI and all that > can't. So for me there's something wrong with the arbitrary grammar of > NAI because I seem to be incapable of fully learning it. Imagine a person leraning that {UInai} means the same as {to'e}. Then ey would use BRIVLA NAI as to'e BRIVLA. However, in your table BRIVLA NAI=na'e BRIVLA This is counter-intuitive. > > Instead I suggest retaining the grammar of {nai} as it is and create > > alternative solutions in CAI for each type of negation. > > That wouldn't help much though. "nai" is normally "opposite", but for > some words it is hard to say what its opposite is, or there may be > nothing that could be called its opposite, so some arbitrary notion of > opposite needs to be imposed. Whatever word you choose to create > opposites will have the same problem. > 1. By not using {nai} we'll lose polysemy of {nai} 2. Yes, sometimes it's not possible to tell what {to'e} would mean. Then just don't use such constructions. It's possible to say nonsense in Lojban, isn't it? So why not retin place for such nonsense? 3. There are not so many places where {nai} is allowed. > 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/-/4WarLWwgGr4J. 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_4_30775981.1355060453711 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 5:17:55 PM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:09 AM, la gle= ki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> doi xorxes, I really think that {nai} shouldn't be moved anywhere.= It
> complicates the grammar for newbies, because it makes semantics no= t obvious.
> So simplifying the grammar means nothing here.

I have been a Lojbanist for I lost count of how many years,

And I respect you.
 
and I
could not tell you with any certainty, without checking with the
grammar, all the selma'o that can be followed with NAI and all that
can't. So for me there's something wrong with the arbitrary grammar of
NAI because I seem to be incapable of fully learning it.

Imagine a person leraning that {UInai} means the same as = {to'e}.
Then ey would use BRIVLA NAI as  to'e BRIVLA.

However, in your table
BRIVLA NAI=3Dna'e BRIVLA

This is counter-intuitive.


 
 

> Instead I suggest retaining the grammar of {nai} as it is and crea= te
> alternative solutions in CAI for each type of negation.

That wouldn't help much though. "nai" is normally "opposite", but for
some words it is hard to say what its opposite is, or there may be
nothing that could be called its opposite, so some arbitrary notion of
opposite needs to be imposed. Whatever word you choose to create
opposites will have the same problem.

1. By not using {nai} we'll lose polys= emy of {nai}
2. Yes, sometimes it's not possible to tell what {to= 'e} would mean. Then just don't use such constructions. It's possible to sa= y nonsense in Lojban, isn't it? So why not retin place for such nonsense?
3. There are not so many places where {nai} is allowed.
=


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/-/4WarLWwgGr4J.
=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_4_30775981.1355060453711--