negated nitcu

["Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Ho hi all.  A blast from the past: a post that talks (gasp) about the
semantics of Lojban.

My two-year-old son has taken a great liking to Raffi, the famous singer of
children's songs (I think he's Canadian).  For inexplicable reasons, Raffi
annoys me significantly less than quite a few other children-song singers,
though of course he can wear on you after a while (the purple dinosaur,
meanwhile, doesn't get mentioned by name in my house, except by the kid
who's too young to know better).  At any rate, one song I'm finding myself
forced to listen to all to often has a bunch of lines like "I don't need
a(n) X to Y."  e.g. "I don't need a lumberjack to pour my milk," "I don't
need a radio to sing a song," "I don't need a dinosaur to eat me up."

Now, there are at least two distinct negations here.  In "I don't need a
radio to sing a song" (or for a more rockin' version, "you don't need a
weatherman to know which way the wind blows"), the meaning is that I can do
it myself; the task may or may not be necessary, but the whatever is not a
needed part of it.  The silly ones "I don't need a lumberjack to pour my
milk" are pretty much the same, with the slight difference that in this
case there really wouldn't be the presupposition that one would be
necessary.  But it's about the same.

The other negation, in "I don't need a dinosaur to eat me up," is a bit
different.  It's not so much that I can get it done without the dinosaur,
but that I don't need to get eaten up, period.  The negation is more on the
necessity of the action in the first place.

There's another one, not in the song, that's a bit related to the first.
It's along the lines of "I don't need a hammer to attach these two papers.
(actually, I need a stapler)."  This is negating the object, but saying
that it's not that object I need, but another (as opposed to the earlier
sentences, which said I needed nothing).

What's all this got to do with Lojban?  I'm just curious how this all plays
out with negations of nitcu.  Saying "mi na nitcu ko'a lenu broda" simply
negates the existence of the "needing" relationship between me and ko'a and
the act of broda, right?  Does it correspond to any of the above neatly?
If anything, probably the first sort.  Does nitcu impy any sort of
necessity to its x3?  It does seem to.  Or maybe only provisionally: if I
want to broda, I need ko'a...  Hmm.  Presumably, the related meaning, the
third one, would be something like "mi nitcu na'e ko'a lenu broda": I need
a non-ko'a in order to broda.

How about the second?  It likely is best translated with a different selbri
than nitcu, eh?  Or is there a negation that makes sense for it?  Hmm.
What about "na'e nitcu"?

Just some random thoughts, so we can all experience the wonderful .oiro'e
that is Lojban negation...

~mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQB1AwUBNByYBsppGeTJXWZ9AQFtOgMAndgse2gnTtnrjo7L1WQTJ5JCZv95P+cY
ZumxB94YBBza1UgfnnpuLDxTjPg38hSGayn6o7y8NhY4OEpvTOBezc0wGV++qcbm
MRMsKjWonqMFyWdsq/6focsUpDlTjQrz
=FttU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----