[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> "su'o da broda naku gi'e brode"
>
> Okay, so now I'm getting further and further confused about your rule.
That's not "my" rule. The rules for "naku" are, as far as I know, not
in the least controversial. The only rule about which there is
disagreement is na+selbri, and that one does not appear in the above
example.
> I
> thought I understood it, based on your claim that it was straightforward and
> easy to apply. Now naku is working (scoping) backward (leftward)?
There is no other operator there for naku to have scope over. It is
the last operator in its bridi.
> And yet,
> if you have it before the broda, you say that it applies to both broda and
> brode?
It's not me who says that. That's the standard, official
interpretation. The terms in front of connected bridi-tails are common
terms.
> I'm sorry, xorxes, but I really can't use a rule where I have to
> submit every utterance to you first to decide how what it means to you.
Do you understand the grammar of {gi'e}? It's as folows:
shared-terms (first-selbri terms-of-first-selbri) gi'e (second-selbri
terms-of-second-selbri)
Notice that there is no room before the first selbri for a non-shared
{naku} term.
> It
> really seems to be working in arbitrary ways.
It is not arbitrary. And in any case, I emphasize that it is not *my*
rule. It's the official rule.
> This might be my own
> densitude, but the rules in the CLL seem very straightforward, and yours
> really don't. YMMV
But you don't seem to be applying the CLL rules correctly in this case.
> This whole thread started with my
> assertion that "[na's] meaning in very complicated sentence with both
> existential qualifiers and bridi tails is not well-defined." And your
> counter assertion " 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."
Exactly.
> It seems
> that you are now agreeing with me that in order for communication to take
> place, both the speaker and audience must agree on how to interpret
> utterances and that the types of sentences under discussion are not
> well-defined.
That's why the characterization is a bit of a sham, when the rule for
na in such a simple sentence is so ill defined. (But the rules for
naku are perfectly well defined.)
> Of course, other than our two voices, we've only heard from
> Pierre (And by proxy, J Cowan in CLL?)). It seems to me I'd have an easier
> (read:less-confusing) time communicating with the latter two in lojban than
> with you.
Maybe.
> Let me be absolutely, absolutely clear, and I've said this many times
> before, but it bears repeating, especially when my tenor seems harsh: I
> respect you, xorxes, I really do. You are both an undisputed jbocre, and
> always willing to reach out to lojbanists of all levels in helping to expand
> understanding of the language. lo du'u mi se raktu so'i lo se xusra be do
> kei na jdikygau mi lo ka sinma do
Thanks, but really, I enjoy these exchanges. I don't think
disagreement equals disrespect. (Fake agreement would be
disrespectful, honest disagreement is prefectly respectful.)
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.