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

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

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Please explain/show counterexample?

For example the one we have been discusing {su'o da na broda gi'e brode}.

>> With the na-rule in place, who knows? CLL doesn't mention that case. Who do
>> we ask?
>
> The BPFK, no?  Isn't that part of your job description to define ill-defined
> areas (rather than rewriting already-defined areas?)

Right. An unfortunate situation given the BPFK's response time.

>> 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)
>
> (I think you meant gi, not gi'e, in the last two??)

Yes.

>> > 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.
>
> Is it?   So how would you negate just the first part (there is someone who
> is not a broda, but is a brode) using naku and gi'e?

"su'o da broda naku gi'e brode"

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.