Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:09 AM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@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 not obvious.
> So simplifying the grammar means nothing here.

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

> 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.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.