[lojban-beginners] Re: Interaction of {na} and {su'o}

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

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