[lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  And there is for "na", too.  Like the first
> transform of transforming it (if it's in a selbri) to "naku" at the start of
> a prenex.

Except when it isn't. When {na} is in a selbri, it can't always be
moved to the start of a prenex. That's the problem with the special
na-rule, it's complicated and ill defined.

> Essentially, one extra step.  But, again, yes, it's very messy
> with bridi tails.  Is "su'oda na broda gi'e brode"  the same as "naku su'oda
> broda gi'e brode"?  (I think yes.

Without the special na-rule it would be obvious that it is not. With
the na-rule in place, who knows? CLL doesn't mention that case. Who do
we ask?

> Otherwise you should say "su'oda broda
> nagi'e brode")

Do we know for sure how na works there? Without the special na-rule,
it would be obvious. With the na-rule in place, who knows?

For me it is obvious that the Right Thing is

su'o da (na broda) gi'e (brode)
= su'o da (broda) na gi'e (brode)
= su'o da ga (na broda) gi'e (brode)
= su'o da ga nai (broda) gi'e (brode)

But with the special na-rule in place, who knows for sure?

> Heck, is "su'oda naku broda gi'e brode" the same as "su'oda
> ge naku broda gi brode"  or "su'oda nage broda gi brode"?

It is "su'o da naku ge broda gi broda". Nobody should have any doubt
about that one. {naku} is a shared term for broda and brode.

As for "su'oda nage broda gi brode", with the special na-rule in
place, who knows?

> By the same
> reasoning as my last parenthetical, I think it's the former.  But it
> certainly  a potential source of confusion.

The special na-rule is the source of confusion. That's my point.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.