Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:16:48 -0500

At 04:34 AM 12/20/01 +0000, Adam Raizen wrote:
>la rab.spir. cusku di'e
> > But {na'eca'a} parses, and in fact {na'epu'i} is even in the cmavo
>list.
> > CAhA is just glaringly different from other tense cmavo in the way
>it's
> > negated, though. People _do_ say {ka'enai}, when {na'eka'e} would be
>the
> > grammatical version.
>
>There is a difference in meaning between 'na ka'e' and 'na'eka'e', and
>while it might not be important in most cases, it probably is in some.

Yes, and which is the meaning of "ka'enai"? nai is usually used for scalar 
negation, though sometimes for logical negation.

lojbab

> > Okay. I'm willing to accept that this system is more powerful, but
>is
> > there any document which explains how this power should be _used_?
>The
> > Book rarely uses more than two tenses at a time, so it doesn't give
>much
> > of an indication of how they interact.
>
>It's the job of users of lojban to discover how the power should be
>used. The book started us off, and now we have the other 75% to
>discover.
>
> > Also, I know from other situations like (as you point out) numbers,
>and
> > UI, that meaningless conglomerations of words can be grammatical.
>It's
> > not the grammar's job to restrict semantics.
>
>Going to the logical extreme, we could make everything be of selma'o
>UI, including selbrivla. That wouldn't restrict anyone from saying
>anything, but it also wouldn't be able to be called unambiguous in any
>sense. Grammatical specifications of how to use the different selma'o
>are necessary, though there may be room in the current system for
>improvement.
>
> > How does this justify VA and ZI being separate? And do they in fact
>have
> > different grammar, or is this another case of a bogus split in
>selma'o?
> > (I forget what the other one was - I think it involved TAhE)
>
>Yes, ZAhO and TAhE and number+ROI are all grammatically identical, but
>putting ZAhO and TAhE into one selma'o wouldn't help learning at all,
>since there's a semantic distinction to be made, and any glance at the
>formal grammar would reveal that they're grammatically identical.
>
>mu'o mi'e .adam.
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send mail to [email-masked]
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org