On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Michael Turniansky
<
mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suggest this conversation has now grown well beyond the limits of
> lojban-beginners list.
> Suffice it to say that while the use of na is
> well-defined in simple bridi, its meaning in very complicated sentence with
> both existential qualifiers and bridi tails is not well-defined.
If {su'o da na broda gi'e brode} counts as a "very complicated
sentence", then the characterization of Lojban as "spoken predicate
logic" is almost a sham. The relative scopes of quantifiers, logical
connectives and negation should be very straightforward.
No, xorxes. I think it is straightforward. So do you. We just reach opposite conclusions about how it is to be parsed. You and I have had extremely long e-mail exchanges about this very subject (which I don't fell like revisiting right now, because we agreed to disagree), so in the interest of not driving away lojban beginners who might throw up their hands at the idea of ever learning lojban, I felt it best not to be talked about there. The question in that thread was about how "na" and "na'e" differed. The question was answered (by both you (who ended up having to honestly write a second letter saying that your first statement, contradictory the CLL and presented unqualified to beginners in lojban, was in fact only "depends who you ask") and me), so it was time to move on.
--gejyspa