[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}
I think this is more appropriate for the main list.
la gleki wrote:
Even the current grammar has two meanings of {nai}.
Such "polysemy" (although lacking ambiguity in any case) might lead to
inconvenience for newbies.
Why {nai} actually means
1. to'e (UInai)
2. na (NU NAI = NU NA KU ZOhU, the same with connectives and BAI)?
The proposal http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Move+NAI+to+CAI adds the third
meaning (na'e).
There is one "meaning" - a syntactically appropriate afterthought
negation of a single word. The semantics of that negation are specific
to what is being negated, but generally it is a scalar/contrary negation
(cf. na'e) of the specific word being marked. Sometimes the nature of
the construct means that a scalar negation is effectively equivalent to
a contradictory negation (cf. na) (this is especially the case for
logical connectives, by intent).
As a scalar negation, it is NOT the equivalent of to'e when attached to
a UI, but rather na'e (generalized rather than extreme contrary
negation). naicai would be the afterthought "nai"-like equivalent of
to'e when attached to UI. That said, sometimes a scalar situation
degenerates to the point where to'e and na'e are equivalent in meaning.
The separate words exist for those situations when the scale is NOT
degenerate.
Next question is why {nai} should move to CAI and then to UI when UI
have no truth value?
It shouldn't, and I have no idea why such a thing would be proposed (I
haven't read the cited proposal, and personally don't consider any
proposals until/unless formally brought before byfy - not that I know
what the procedure for doing so would be these days).
We specifically considered that when solving the negation problem. Most
languages have oversimplified and degenerate forms of negation (probably
because logical complexity is "inconvenient for newbies"). TLI Loglan
does so. Lojban specifically tried to improve on that situation.
If so why having {to'e}, {no'e} and {na'e} and if they can be always
optionally replaced with {nai}, {cu'i} and some experimental cmavo (e.g.
{ne'e}) correspondingly?
They can't be so replaced, unless some proposal screws up the language
in an attempt to oversimplify the negation problem. Having multiple
words allows the semantics of each situation to resolve over time with
usage evolving the way each word is interpreted.
Note also that nai is afterthought (like UI) while the NAhE family of
words are forethought and can be used with larger constructs than a
single word.
lojbab
--
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.