[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [lojban] Epictetus, Discourses 1.1
At 02:57 AM 9/7/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
Nick:
> cu'u la xorxes.
>
> >Maybe usage will just redefine {na} as having scope over the
> >bridi-tail only. Are there other languages that have their negatives
> >work as in Lojban?
>
> You mean, I suppose, that naku is natural and na is not, right? I suspect
> so too. I'm not quite in a position to hunt down typological surveys of
> negation; And, would you have access to this sort of thing? If you're
> really keen to know, I'll see if I can't reattach to the grapevine of
> erstwhile colleagues...
I don't know of any pertinent studies. However, many dialects of English
work in the Lojban way (hence "All that glitters is not gold"). IIRC
John or Lojbab speaks such a dialect. I don't, and that dialect, and
it's Lojban analogue, always causes me a double take.
L. Horn, _A Natural History of Negation_
It was the primary source in the revision of negation that was described in
the "Negation Paper", now absorbed into various places in the Book. pc
read it thorough; I rather less so, since I didn't have the knowledge of
linguistics to handle it at the time (this was 1989).
And no, I don't speak that dialect of English, which seems to have become
commonplace in the US in the last decade or so. It drives me batty to read
sentences like that that seem to make universal claims, but don't really do so.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org