[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}



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 <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}={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.