From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 27 16:32:21 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 23:32:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 57815 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 23:32:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 23:32:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-6.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.106) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 23:32:19 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-67-49.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.67.49]) by mailbox-6.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3F9292A9 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 01:32:17 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:33:54 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin jimc: > On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, jjllambias2000 wrote: > > la djorden cusku di'e > > > It's actually pretty simple: there's no need to do real thinking > > > about the sentence: > > > - if you can rephrase it as "It is false that: foo", the na is > > fine. > > > > I call that real thinking, and that't exactly what I do to > > analyze it. But I don't want to have to rephrase a sentence > > in order to understand it. I don't want to have to translate > > it in the first place. > > Perhaps the real issue is that you have to reprogram your semantic analyser > for real logic. Mapping Lojban 1-1 into an illogical natlang is going to > mangle the result, particularly where "carbon units" are most sloppy in > their logic. I've actually gotten into the habit of using Lojban-style > predicate logic and quantifier scope (and negation) internally, Right, but the whole problem here is that the iinear/one-dimensionsal hierarchy of scope relations is, in a highly intuitive way, reflected in Lojban by linear order *except* for bare {na}. So when processing Lojban logically you have to remember two facts: Fact A. Scope goes left to right, as you would expect. Fact B. {na} is an exception. Fact B is counterintuitive, and it is an effort to remember to remember it. --And.