DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;        s=beta; d=gmail.com;        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;        b=kZSdoU9c3Yvc6tY0QauI2zz457sp60eRNghV7ynzPsItGKMrkP7uL6Aan/c65WVuxSFfvArXUMzxbAsaUulHdMACMPUcWQaN/8bvhVbm8bwC7ka8LQHBHXgfx0lhOTKNB8filbjCMfQ5N7OTBku8VJUQc3I1sCoZgHdhiMN1Ujs=
Message-ID: <925d17560612080811w27df804el297674526f02acd9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 13:11:10 -0300
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Interaction of {na} and {su'o}
In-Reply-To: <537d06d00612080102v4b8193cewb85358c443068528@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <537d06d00612071116i5f7c265wd9a26f4e7d79a1f0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <925d17560612071151s4ab97e0bvf666cbb99dfd9f45@mail.gmail.com>
	 <537d06d00612080102v4b8193cewb85358c443068528@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 1397

On 12/8/06, Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/7/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/7/06, Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Would that mean that {ro danlu na xarju} and/or {naku ro danlu cu
> > > xarju} and/or {naku zo'u ro danlu cu xarju} would be better?
> >
> > I prefer {me'i ro} for the "not all" quantifier, so: {me'i ro danlu cu xarju}
>
> Ah, that cleverly avoids the problem with negation. Thanks.
>
> Would one or more of the suggestions I made be possible, too? (Or does
> that depend on which school of thought one subscribes to?)

The {naku} versions are equivalent and quite uncontroversial, yes.

The problem is the meaning of {na} in front of the selbri. The official rule
is that it's equivalent to {naku} in front of everything, as you say, but this
rule is problematic. Let's consider this example:

          su'o danlu cu xanto gi'e na xarju

What does that say?

There are three operators with scope to consider: {su'o}, {gi'e} and {na}.
It can't be the case that {su'o} has scope over {gi'e}, and {gi'e} has scope
over {na}, and {na} has scope over {su'o}. One of them has to give. Which
one? The most sensible for me is su'o > gi'e > na, i.e. that there are
some animals that are elephants and not pigs. I don't know what
interpretation the offficial rule supporters give to that sentence.

mu'o mi'e xorxes