[lojban] Re: na scope. Again.

[Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 09:20:53PM +0200, robin wrote:
> Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >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?

The goal would be to make "na" equivalent to a "na ku" in the same
place, because otherwise the scoping is really wierd and people
often get it wrong.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/