[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> maikxlx wrote:
> > Let's simplify "I want to try to pry {ka'e} from {kakne} at this
>>
>> point" and translate it as {mi la'e de'u djica}. We want to say
>>
>> (0) Not necessarily: mi la'e de'u djica
>>
>> We can try
>>
>> (1) na ku ni'i ku mi la'e de'u djica
>>
>> How would you translate that?
>
> It is not the case that: something (unspecified) logically necessitates me
> wanting it.
>
I agree with your translation, as I indicated in a followup email.
> Nora suggests putting a "da" after ni'i might make this more clear
> (1') na ku ni'i da ku mi la'e de'u djica
> It is not the case that: there exists an x such that x necessitates me
> wanting it.
>
Yes, I think {da} helps make it clearer.
> In English, perhaps, but not in the Lojban.
>
Right. The English "I don't want it by logical necessity" and similar
sentences are often ambiguous.
> I'm a little hazy on negation scope, but I THINK
>
> (i.) ni'iku naku mi la'e di'u djica
> and
> (ii.) naku ni'iku mi la'e di'u djica
>
[i.e. basically my (2) and (1) respectively]
> differ in whether the ni'i is included in the negation
> and I think would be translated respectively.
> (i.) Logically entailed by something, it is false that I want it.
> (ii.) It is false that (it is logically entailed that I want it).
>
I agree with the gist of these, but I think that the translation that
you gave for (ii) could also be a translation of (1') with {da}:
(1') na ku ni'i da ku mi la'e de'u djica
"It is false that there is one or more things that logically entail
that I want it"
"It is false that it is logically entailed that I want it."
With implicit {zo'e} I fear you might get a different result.
> I think that the latter approximates to your (0).
>
I am unsure that (1)/(ii) with {ni'i [zo'e] ku} is a good enough
approximation. At first glance, Nora's (1') with {ni'i da ku} could
work. But there are issues. Consider this example:
(3) Necessarily: ro nanmu je se mensi cu bruna
This has "necessarily", without the "not". Dropping the {na ku} as
used in (0), the {ni'i da ku} solution gives us:
(3') ni'i da ku ro nanmu je se mensi ne'e bruna
"There exists an x such that x necessitates that all men with sisters
are brothers."
"Something necessitates that all men with sisters are brothers."
That _is_ arguably an approximation, but not really what we want to
say. It gets even clumsier when you try to express "possibly". Note
that in modal logic, "possibly" is interchangeable with "not
necessarily not". Taking advantage of this:
(4) Possibly: ko'a bruna. "He is possibly a brother".
(4') na ku ni'i da ku na ku ko'a bruna
"It is false that there exists an x such that x necessitates that he
is not a brother."
That also is not _really_ what you want to say.
> I would normally do anything complex like this with explicit prenexes, so
> (ii.') naku ni'iku zo'u mi la'e di'u djica
>
> To indicate that you want it despite what is logically entailed, you would
> use ni'inai ku, with no sentence negation.
>
> (iii.) ni'inai ku mi la'e de'u djica
> (Despite) some logic, nevertheless I want it.
>
> It is also possible that "na'eni'i ku" would serve to negate ONLY the
> entailment. But na'e is a scalar negation and we haven't formally defined
> what exactly na'eni'i means. Best guess for this
>
> (iv.) na'eni'iku mi la'e di'u djica
> Other-than-logically entailed, I (still) want it.
>
> Which is still a claim that you want it, which is not (0) as I understand
> it.
>
I follow, and agree that neither {nai} nor {na'e} get you (0).
> Perhaps the real problem is that the main selbri is wrong.
>
> (ii.'') na nibli lenu mi la'e de'u djica
>
I'd put {da} at the front to be clear, but other than that I don't see
how it's different than the {ni'i} version. "It's false that something
necessitates that I want it."
> seems more straightforward to achieve your (0).
>
> Nora observes that nibli/ni'i may not be the right concept for
> "necessarily" as you use it in (0).
>
I think Nora may be right. Entailment is not the same as modal
necessity and using {ni'i} to express the latter is at best a kludge.
>
>> I see even less how the inherence "but someone else
>>
>> might want it" can be gotten.
>
> Change the English emphasis and it becomes more obvious.
>
> "**I** do not necessarily want it"
>
Yes, but wouldn't {ba'e} be needed to achieve this kind of emphasis in Lojban?
> lojbab
>
mu'o mi'e .maik.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.