[lojban] Re: na scope. Again.

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

--- robin.tr wrote:
> Sorry, I meant "bridi". But it seems that if {mi e do na klama le zarci} 
> means that neither I nor you go to the store, then what we are doing is 
> modifying the brivla, i.e. we're saying "I and you do something other 
> than go to the store" which is pretty much the same as saying {mi e do 
> na'e klama le zarci}, isn't it?

{e}, like {na}, is a bridi operator.
We can apply first {e} and then {na}, or first {na} and then {e}.

Option 1:

  mi e do na klama le zarci
= naku mi e do na klama le zarci
= naku ge mi klama le zarci gi do klama le zarci
= ga mi na klama le zarci gi do na klama le zarci

Option 2:

  mi e do na klama le zarci
= ge mi na klama le zarci gi do na klama le zarci

In 1, {na} has scope over {e}. In 2, {e} has scope over {na}.
Option 2 does not say that you and I do something else to 
the store. It just says that I don't go there and you don't 
go there.

> Forgive me if I'm being dense here; I've always found negation hard to 
> get my head round.

I think the problem is not so much negation but realizing that
connectives and quantifiers are bridi operators as much as 
negation is, and the order in which they are applied with respect
to negation matters. This is separate from the issue of {na'e}
changing a brivla into a different brivla, which I don't dispute
at all.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



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