[lojban] Re: na scope. Again.

[robin <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

Jorge Llambías wrote:
> --- Jorge Llambías wrote:
>
> > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 07:12:16AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am doing the section on NA, which should cover some of that. My
> > > > intention is to propose an interpretation where the scope of {na}
> > > > is restricted to what follows it. 
> > >
> > > This would change the meaning of simple negations like "mi na klama
> > > le zarci", would it not?  Good mabla luck.
> >
> > Not at all, how would that change? There are no quantifiers
> > or connectives to interact with {na} there.
>
>
> What it would change is simple negations like 
> {mi e do na klama le zarci}. Instead of meaning that
> either I don't go, or you don't go, or both, it would
> mean that neither I nor you go.

I would find that rather weird (lojbanically - it makes sense if you 
want to make Lojban closer to English), and also think it would defeat 
the point of using "na" rather than "na'e". If "na" doesn't mean "it is 
not the case that [brivla]", what does it mean that isn't covered by a 
different negative?

robin.tr


--
"His youngest brother, Tendzin Choegyal, says one of the Dalai Lama's 
greatest finds of recent years was super-glue -- second, in fact, only 
to the more recent discovery of super-glue remover."

Robin Turner
IDMYO
Bilkent Universitesi
Ankara 06533
Turkey

www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin