Subject: Re: [lojban] na'ebo

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:56:27 EDT

In a message dated 7/24/2002 7:28:05 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> > >{na'ebo le broda}
> > >{le na'e broda}
> 
> The significant difference between those two comes from
> the definiteness of {le}, which makes the second definite
> while the first is indefinite.
> 
> I wonder whether there's a difference between {na'ebo lo broda}
> and {lo na'e broda}.
> 
> Is a dog {na'ebo lo gerku}, on the grounds that it is other
> than some (other) dog? In that case, {lo na'e broda} would
> be equivalent to {na'ebo ro broda}.
> >>

I'm not sure that the definiteness of {le} is any more significant here than 
elsewhere, the indefiniteness of the first sumti is a result of the assumed 
{su'o} on {na'ebo} sumti and the fact that "other than" gets dealt with using 
identities, not categorical predicates: "something that is not identical with 
x" [x the designated object referred to by the {le} expression -- keeping it 
simple for the moment]. The {lo} case is surely equally indefinite: {na'ebo 
lo broda} refers to something that is not a broda -- or not some specific 
broda; {lo na'e broda} also refers to something that is not a broda -- 
without the other possibility. 
The suggested reading of {na'ebo lo broda} seems unlikely (as the first seems 
redundant). It seems to involve an intermediate selection process or to 
dissolve (so lng as there are two brodas) into vacuity. If we pick the 
avoided group before hand,
{ da poi broda zo'u ge de na du da gi de co'e} [for the simple case, again] 
then it becomes definite in the context of the specification of the {na'ebo} 
sumti -- and, of course, the quantifiers get crossed. Which may or may not 
be a problem. On the other hand, {da de poi broda zo'u ge da na du de gi da 
co'e}, for whatever {da} is there is always a broda that is other than it, so 
long as there are at least two brodas. Neither of these seems to make 
Lojbanic sense, so the earlier interpretation, which leaves both {na'ebo lo 
broda} and {lo na'e broda} essentially the same sounds more likely. But that 
does mean that both are equipollent to {na'ebo ro broda}, under again the 
most reasonable interpretation.