Re: [lojban] common words

[Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@MATH.BAS.BG>]

Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la ivAn cusku di'e
> >{to'e} means scalar opposite, which is not the same thing
> >as reversal of the effect of an action, right?
> 
> It isn't?

No, it isn't.  The main difference is that scalar opposites
are essentially symmetrical, whereas antonyms of the type
`act : undo effect of action' are not; `decode' means `undo
the effect of encoding', but `encode' does not mean `undo the
effect of decoding'.

There is a similarity, but on a deeper level:  the representation
of `encode' as `cause to become <pos> encoded' and of `decode'
as `cause to become <neg> encoded' employs the scalar opposites
`<pos> : <neg>'.

That said, I'm inclined to think that the deep-level opposition
is a {na'e} one, not a {to'e} one.  When you paint something
white, undoing the action means removing the paint and restoring
the status quo (making it {na'e} painted), not painting it
{to'e} white (that is, black).

Question is, how can you express deep-level negation
without having access to the semantic decomposition?

--Ivan