[lojban] Re: na scope. Again.

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- robin wrote:
> Jorge Llambías 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),

That's certainly not the goal. I don't mind Lojban differing from
English whenever it makes sense, but the global scope of {na} makes 
no sense even from a strictly lojbanic point of view. It just 
doesn't fit well with everything else with scope, and it creates
some problems that need more ad-hoc rules to solve them. 

> and also think it would defeat 
> the point of using "na" rather than "na'e". 

{na'e} modifies a brivla, it is quite different from {na}, which
negates a bridi. I am in no way proposing to conflate them.

> If "na" doesn't mean "it is 
> not the case that [brivla]", what does it mean that isn't covered by a 
> different negative?

{na} means "it is not the case that [bridi]". That doesn't change.

Quantifiers are also bridi modifiers. For example, {roda zo'u [bridi]}
means:

For every x, it is the case that [bridi].

What happens when you have both {roda} and {na} present? They can
modify a bridi in two different orders:

It is not the case that: For every x it is the case that: [bridi]

or:

For every x it is the case that: It is not the case that: [bridi]

Normally, when we have two operators that act on a bridi, the
first one takes the second one under its scope. This happens
for example with {roda} and {naku} or {roda} and {su'ode} 
or {roda} and {ga... gi...}, etc. For some reason, {na} was
excepted from this rule, so that it supposedly always trumps
any other bridi operator when it appears right in front of
the selbri. In simple cases, this is awkward, but it can be 
managed. In some more complex cases, for example with {na} 
inside a logically connected bridi, the whole things just 
breaks down. 

In addition, the rule for other bridi operators that can also 
appear in front of the selbri, such as {roroi}, was never very
clear. Do they follow the {na} rule, or the usual one of order
of appearance?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com