Re: [lojban] {nai} vs {ne'e}: simple vs polar negation

2015-07-17 7:36 GMT+03:00 Spheniscine (la zipcpi) <spheniscine@gmail.com>:

The problem:
{nai} is currently overloaded, especially with UI and COI. For some of these, (e.g. da'i, pe'a) it represents merely simple negation (na'e-X, "not-X"), while for others (like the familiar {ui}), it actually represents polar negation (to'e-X, "opposite-of-X").

I don't see how for {da'i} and {pe'a} {nai} doesn't represent the opposite part of the scale.

And then there are the really oddball ones, like {ba'a}, where the {ja'ai-cu'i-nai} scale is defined with respect to time, rather than scalar strength.

In particular, is {ba'asai} "I strongly expect", or "I expect in the far-ish future"?

{ba'a} scale like all scales represents a scale no matter whether it's about time or not.

Compare {ui} scale where an emotion is slowly changing from one into another.

Compare {ba'a} scale where the information is slowly changing from being not yet experienced to already experienced.

{uisai} is strong attitude.

{ba'asai} is strong attitude.

There is no difference in concepts of these two. If you don't like it then you don't use this or that word and use other words or create new words.

Furthermore, {nai} being to'e-X rather than na'e-X in these cases, makes it hard to express na'e-X.

That's because you specify your own attitude. Attitudinals are very special words (as e.g. opposed to purely logical adverbs like {fi'o gleki}.

{uipei} = "Are you happy?" - how to express "No" without implying "sad"?

You specify what you feel.

{uicu'i} isn't actually defined, and {cu'i} is actually associated with {no'e} rather than {na'e}

The thing though, is that {nai} practically means {na'e} in pretty much all other cases that don't involve UI and COI. Sumtcita, for example, {punai} = {na'e pu} / {fi'o na xo'i pu}. Likewise, the most natural interpretation of {barda nai} and {mlatu nai} is {na'e barda} and {na'e mlatu}.

That's because those are different words with different scales.

There's also the {ju'ocu'i} problem: there is a trend to use {ju'onai} over it just to mean {na'e birti}, rather than the {to'e birti} as officially defined. (The common opinion is that the {to'e birti} sense can often just be {ju'o naku})

The proposal:
{ne'e} is an experimental cmavo first defined by Gleki, that is essentially the CAI form of {to'e}. (I have used it for the compound {rone'e} ("least contextually possible number"; usually zero, but could be negative on scales like Celsius, or even positive on scales like SAT scores), and also defined {u'ene'e} to give the {u'e}-scale a third value ("disappointment"), first proposed by Curtis as {uaunai}). Thus, the proposal is to essentially promote {ne'e} over {nai} in all contexts where the meaning is closer to {to'e} than {na'e}. Thus, {uine'e} for "sadness", while {uinai} would just be "not happy"

Potential issues:
It might be difficult to essentially change the meaning of {uinai} etc. overnight. It might, however, be possible to do it gradually; first promote {uine'e} over {uinai}, then redefine {uinai} after this usage becomes widespread.

or just don't use attitudinals if you find them problematic.

{sei na'e gleki} etc. are fine.

Unfortunately, {ne'e} is two syllables to {nai}'s one, which might make retard this process. (There is a cekitaujau proposal to swap it with {tei})

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.