polysemy of {nai}

[la gleki]

Even the current grammar has two meanings of {nai}.

Such "polysemy" (although lacking ambiguity in any case) might lead to inconvenience for newbies.

Why {nai} actually means

1. to'e (UInai)

2. na (NU NAI = NU NA KU ZOhU, the same with connectives and BAI)?

The proposal http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Move+NAI+to+CAI adds the third meaning (na'e).

Next question is why {nai} should move to CAI and then to UI when UI have no truth value?

It puts {nai} into strange relation with {na'i} that is already in UI.

If so why having {to'e}, {no'e} and {na'e} and if they can be always optionally replaced with {nai}, {cu'i} and some experimental cmavo (e.g. {ne'e}) correspondingly?

[Robert LeChevalier]

I think this is more appropriate for the main list.

la gleki wrote:
> Even the current grammar has two meanings of {nai}.
> Such "polysemy" (although lacking ambiguity in any case) might lead to
> inconvenience for newbies.
> Why {nai} actually means
> 1. to'e (UInai)
> 2. na (NU NAI = NU NA KU ZOhU, the same with connectives and BAI)?
>
> The proposal http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Move+NAI+to+CAI adds the third
> meaning (na'e).

There is one "meaning" - a syntactically appropriate afterthought
negation of a single word. The semantics of that negation are specific
to what is being negated, but generally it is a scalar/contrary negation
(cf. na'e) of the specific word being marked. Sometimes the nature of
the construct means that a scalar negation is effectively equivalent to
a contradictory negation (cf. na) (this is especially the case for
logical connectives, by intent).

As a scalar negation, it is NOT the equivalent of to'e when attached to
a UI, but rather na'e (generalized rather than extreme contrary
negation). naicai would be the afterthought "nai"-like equivalent of
to'e when attached to UI. That said, sometimes a scalar situation
degenerates to the point where to'e and na'e are equivalent in meaning.
The separate words exist for those situations when the scale is NOT
degenerate.

> Next question is why {nai} should move to CAI and then to UI when UI
> have no truth value?

It shouldn't, and I have no idea why such a thing would be proposed (I
haven't read the cited proposal, and personally don't consider any
proposals until/unless formally brought before byfy - not that I know
what the procedure for doing so would be these days).

We specifically considered that when solving the negation problem. Most
languages have oversimplified and degenerate forms of negation (probably
because logical complexity is "inconvenient for newbies"). TLI Loglan
does so. Lojban specifically tried to improve on that situation.

> If so why having {to'e}, {no'e} and {na'e} and if they can be always
> optionally replaced with {nai}, {cu'i} and some experimental cmavo (e.g.
> {ne'e}) correspondingly?

They can't be so replaced, unless some proposal screws up the language
in an attempt to oversimplify the negation problem. Having multiple
words allows the semantics of each situation to resolve over time with
usage evolving the way each word is interpreted.

Note also that nai is afterthought (like UI) while the NAhE family of
words are forethought and can be used with larger constructs than a
single word.

lojbab

[la gleki]

Let me see if I understand negators correctly (scheme attached in a file to this post).

{na'e} says that we are somewere at another point but on the same scale.
{no'e} says we are in the middle of the same scale.

{to'e} says that we are at the opposite point of the same scale.

{na'i} says that we are outside this scale (i.e. this predicate relationship)

{na}. Here I have a problem. According to what I draw {na} means that we are not at this point of this scale and may be even outside this scale.

So for me {na} is (warning! bad grammar follows) {na'i ja na'e}.

But may be you prove me wrong (I'm not sure myself).

Anyway, I want all types of negation to fit on the same scheme.

Last time when I draw a similar scheme I could completely solve (at least for myself) the problem of subjunctives in lojban.

Now it's time for negation.

On Friday, December 7, 2012 12:28:51 AM UTC+4, lojbab wrote:

I think this is more appropriate for the main list.

la gleki wrote:
> Even the current grammar has two meanings of {nai}.
> Such "polysemy" (although lacking ambiguity in any case) might lead to
> inconvenience for newbies.
> Why {nai} actually means
> 1. to'e (UInai)
> 2. na (NU NAI = NU NA KU ZOhU, the same with connectives and BAI)?
>
> The proposal http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Move+NAI+to+CAI adds the third
> meaning (na'e).

There is one "meaning" - a syntactically appropriate afterthought
negation of a single word.  The semantics of that negation are specific
to what is being negated, but generally it is a scalar/contrary negation
(cf. na'e) of the specific word being marked.  Sometimes the nature of
the construct means that a scalar negation is effectively equivalent to
a contradictory negation (cf. na) (this is especially the case for
logical connectives, by intent).

I understand that on boolean scale {na'e=to'e}  but what is {na} then?

As a scalar negation, it is NOT the equivalent of to'e when attached to
a UI, but rather na'e (generalized rather than extreme contrary
negation).

na'e is {cu'i ja to'e} (grammar ingnored), isn't it?

 naicai would be the afterthought "nai"-like equivalent of
to'e when attached to UI.  That said, sometimes a scalar situation
degenerates to the point where to'e and na'e are equivalent in meaning.

This is not the case with some UI that have {cu'i}  as an appropriate point on the scale.

  The separate words exist for those situations when the scale is NOT
degenerate.

> Next question is why {nai} should move to CAI and then to UI when UI
> have no truth value?

It shouldn't, and I have no idea why such a thing would be proposed (I
haven't read the cited proposal, and personally don't consider any
proposals until/unless formally brought before byfy - not that I know
what the procedure for doing so would be these days).

One more vite that it shouldn't be done. Therefore, the poll is closed.

moving to CAI - may be.

moving to UI - no.

:)

We specifically considered that when solving the negation problem.  Most
languages have oversimplified and degenerate forms of negation (probably
because logical complexity is "inconvenient for newbies").  TLI Loglan
does so.  Lojban specifically tried to improve on that situation.

> If so why having {to'e}, {no'e} and {na'e} and if they can be always
> optionally replaced with {nai}, {cu'i} and some experimental cmavo (e.g.
> {ne'e}) correspondingly?

They can't be so replaced, unless some proposal screws up the language
in an attempt to oversimplify the negation problem.  Having multiple
words allows the semantics of each situation to resolve over time with
usage evolving the way each word is interpreted.

That's what I'm proposing. Separate words for different meanings.

 

Note also that nai is afterthought (like UI) while the NAhE family of
words are forethought and can be used with larger constructs than a
single word.

UI/CAI can be used with larger constructions, don't they? 

lojbab

[John Cowan]

la gleki scripsit:

> {na'e} says that we are somewere at another point but on the same scale.
> {no'e} says we are in the middle of the same scale.
> {to'e} says that we are at the opposite point of the same scale.

Right.

> {na'i} says that we are outside this scale (i.e. this predicate
> relationship)

"Na'i" says that there's something wrong with the way the statement is
formulated. "Na'i I drove my car to work today" is a true statement,
since I don't have a car and in fact don't drive.

> {na}. Here I have a problem. According to what I draw {na} means that we
> are not at this point of this scale and may be even outside this scale.
> So for me {na} is (warning! bad grammar follows) {na'i ja na'e}.

"Na" is not about scales either. It says no more and no less than that
the rest of the sentence is untrue. "Na'e censa" is "secular", but
"ti na na'e censa" does not reduce to "ti censa" logically, though it
may do so pragmatically.

> Anyway, I want all types of negation to fit on the same scheme.

They don't, and aren't intended to. Lojban's round pegs will not fit
in your square holes.

--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
Assent may be registered by a signature, a handshake, or a click of a computer
mouse transmitted across the invisible ether of the Internet. Formality
is not a requisite; any sign, symbol or action, or even willful inaction,
as long as it is unequivocally referable to the promise, may create a contract.
--Specht v. Netscape

[la gleki]

On Friday, December 7, 2012 8:51:43 PM UTC+4, John Cowan wrote:

la gleki scripsit:

> {na'e} says that we are somewere at another point but on the same scale.
> {no'e} says we are in the middle of the same scale.
> {to'e} says that we are at the opposite point of the same scale.

Right.

> {na'i} says that we are outside this scale (i.e. this predicate
> relationship)

"Na'i" says that there's something wrong with the way the statement is
formulated.  "Na'i I drove my car to work today" is a true statement,
since I don't have a car and in fact don't drive.

> {na}. Here I have a problem. According to what I draw {na} means that we
> are not at this point of this scale and may be even outside this scale.
> So for me {na} is (warning! bad grammar follows) {na'i ja na'e}.

"Na" is not about scales either.  It says no more and no less than that
the rest of the sentence is untrue.  "Na'e censa" is "secular", but
"ti na na'e censa" does not reduce to "ti censa" logically, though it
may do so pragmatically.

> Anyway, I want all types of negation to fit on the same scheme.

They don't, and aren't intended to.  Lojban's round pegs will not fit
in your square holes.

Then explain me how one {nai} can give birth both to round pegs and square nails?

I showed on my table that {na} means either {na} or outside the scale. This is what you are saying
(""Na" is not about scales either")

[John Cowan]

la gleki scripsit:

> Then explain me how one {nai} can give birth both to round pegs and square
> nails?

As the Red Book explains in Section 15.7, the meaning of "nai" depends on
the selma'o of the word it is attached to. It is contradictory negation
(na) when attached to NU, A, GIhA, JA, GA, GUhA, GI, PU, FAhA, BAI.
It is scalar negation (na'e) when attached to JOI, BIhI, ROI, TAhE, ZAhO.
It is polar negation (to'e) when attached to COI, UI, CAI. When standing
alone as a text-0, it is vague in meaning (like English "No.").

--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan

It's the old, old story. Droid meets droid. Droid becomes chameleon.
Droid loses chameleon, chameleon becomes blob, droid gets blob back
again. It's a classic tale. --Kryten, Red Dwarf

[la gleki]

On Saturday, December 8, 2012 7:04:21 AM UTC+4, John Cowan wrote:

la gleki scripsit:

> Then explain me how one {nai} can give birth both to round pegs and square
> nails?

As the Red Book explains in Section 15.7, the meaning of "nai" depends on
the selma'o of the word it is attached to.  It is contradictory negation
(na) when attached to NU, A, GIhA, JA, GA, GUhA, GI, PU, FAhA, BAI.
It is scalar negation (na'e) when attached to JOI, BIhI, ROI, TAhE, ZAhO.
It is polar negation (to'e) when attached to COI, UI, CAI.  When standing
alone as a text-0, it is vague in meaning (like English "No.").

Here we go again.... that what i started with....

[Jorge Llambías]

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:35 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, I want all types of negation to fit on the same scheme.
> Last time when I draw a similar scheme I could completely solve (at least
> for myself) the problem of subjunctives in lojban.
> Now it's time for negation.

Negation is acheved with "na" or "na'e". They both have the same
meaning, just different scopes. "na'e" can pretty much be replaced
with "me lo na" and "na" can pretty much be replaced with "na'e ke ...
ke'e be ... bei ... bei ...".

"to'e" is not really negation, it is "opposite" or "antonym":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposite_(semantics)
Calling it "negation" is just one of those weird Lojbanic
eccentricities. "no'e" expresses the midpoint between something and
its opposite, so it only really works with gradable antonyms.

"na'i" is a kind of negation, although what it negates is not explicit
in the discourse. It negates a presupposition, something that is taken
for granted as true, and therefore is not expressed. So na'i says that
a sentence cannot be evaluated as either true or false because
something prior that needs to be satisfied to even make sense of the
sentence is not being satisfied. Once the presupposition is expressed
explicitly, it can be negated with "na", as usual. "na'i" just
indicates that there is something unexpressed that wants to be
negated. So "na'i" is a metalinguistic "na".

"nai" changes the meaning of the preceding word to something with the
same function but different meaning, usually but not always an
opposite meaning. ".enai" for example is not really the opposite of
".e" (indeed it is not clear what the opposite of ".e" would be, not
every word has a clear opposite). ".enai" is a logical connective
whose truth table is related to the truth table of ".e" in some
systematic way that can be explained using negation.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[la gleki]

As it's still a BPFK thread my question is why did you suggest moving {nai} to UI in the long run when it shouldn't have the truth value?

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 11:53 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As it's still a BPFK thread my question is why did you suggest moving {nai}
> to UI in the long run when it shouldn't have the truth value?

I'm not sure I follow the part about truth values.

"nai" should be moved to CAI because it does the same as other CAI's,
it takes a word and changes it into something with the same function
and a systematically related meaning.

And CAI should be merged with UI because they have the exact same
syntax. It is pointless to have two selma'o with the same syntax.

[John Cowan]

Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:

> Negation is acheved with "na" or "na'e". They both have the same
> meaning, just different scopes. "na'e" can pretty much be replaced
> with "me lo na" and "na" can pretty much be replaced with "na'e ke ...
> ke'e be ... bei ... bei ...".

This is not at all the case.

"mi na klama le zarci" means that it's false that I go to the store, and
nothing more. It does not affirm anything. "mi na'e klama le zarci"
means that I do have some relationship to the store that is related on
a scale to "going". Perhaps I am coming from the store. At any rate,
something is being affirmed.

> "nai" should be moved to CAI because it does the same as other CAI's,
> it takes a word and changes it into something with the same function
> and a systematically related meaning.

I've just shown that it's *not* systematically related. Sometimes it is
mere contradictory negation, sometimes it is scalar negation, and sometimes
it is polar negation. Allowing "nai" to be attached to any word would
indeed require a systematic relationship between the word and its
counterpart with "nai", but that contradicts both the Red Book and usage.

"nai" is a convenience feature, which is why the grammar only allows it in
well-defined places.

--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves.
--Murray Gell-Mann

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:21 PM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías scripsit:

>
>> Negation is acheved with "na" or "na'e". They both have the same
>> meaning, just different scopes. "na'e" can pretty much be replaced
>> with "me lo na" and "na" can pretty much be replaced with "na'e ke ...
>> ke'e be ... bei ... bei ...".
>
> This is not at all the case.
>
> "mi na klama le zarci" means that it's false that I go to the store, and
> nothing more. It does not affirm anything. "mi na'e klama le zarci"
> means that I do have some relationship to the store that is related on
> a scale to "going". Perhaps I am coming from the store. At any rate,
> something is being affirmed.

I don't think you can use "mi na'e klama le zarci" to affirm that you
are coming from the store. You can only use it to affirm that the
relationship between you and the store, whatever that relationship may
be, is other than "klama". That's not really saying anything different
from "mi na klama le zarci". If you are coming from the store, both
"mi na'e klama le zarci" and "mi na klama le zarci" are true, but
neither affirms that you are coming from the store.

A better example for what you mean may be something like "lo du'u
carvi na blanu" vs. "lo du'u carvi na'e blanu", where you could argue
that the first is true (because propositions don't have colors) while
the second must be false, because presumably you would be saying that
a proposition is of some color other than blue. But other than such
nonsense sentences, there really is no difference (besides scope)
between "na" and "na'e". Both "lo du'u carvi na blanu" and "lo du'u
carvi na'e blanu" fail even before considering their truth value
because they involve inappropriate scales for the objects in question.
If you prefer, I will say that "na" and "na'e" have the same meaning
(leaving aside scope issues) whenever they are used with predicates
appropriate for their arguments.

>> "nai" should be moved to CAI because it does the same as other CAI's,
>> it takes a word and changes it into something with the same function
>> and a systematically related meaning.
>
> I've just shown that it's *not* systematically related. Sometimes it is
> mere contradictory negation, sometimes it is scalar negation, and sometimes
> it is polar negation.

".enai" is not any of those with respect to ".e". ".enai" is a logical
connective with truth table "0 1 0 0" as opposed to truth table "1 0 0
0" for ".e". In fact the closest to contradictory negation of ".e" is
"na.anai", with truth table "0 1 1 1" not ".enai".

By systematically I meant it follows a pattern in how it changes words
with the same function. I agree it is not possible to follow the same
pattern for words with wildly different functions such as, for
instance, ".e" and "ui".

> Allowing "nai" to be attached to any word would
> indeed require a systematic relationship between the word and its
> counterpart with "nai", but that contradicts both the Red Book and usage.

There is some usage of "nai" with words other than those officially
allowed, but yes, allowing "nai" after any word would of course
contradict the CLL.

> "nai" is a convenience feature, which is why the grammar only allows it in
> well-defined places.

Why would its being a convenience feature prevent it from being
allowed with every word? It would then be even more convenient.

[John Cowan]

Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:

> I don't think you can use "mi na'e klama le zarci" to affirm that you
> are coming from the store. You can only use it to affirm that the
> relationship between you and the store, whatever that relationship may
> be, is other than "klama".

Exactly, and what I am affirming (though not explicitly) is that the
relationship is "se te klama". In English, if I ask "Are you going to
the store", I may reply "I'm not *going* to the store", with sentential
stress on "going". This is "na'e", whereas "I'm not going to the store"
without sentential stress may be "na'e" or "na", depending on context.
(I don't know how you make this contrast in the Romance languages.)

This is clearer if we look at sumti scalar negation with "na'e bo".
"mi klama na'e bo le zarci" definitely affirms that I went somewhere,
it just wasn't the store. "mi na klama le zarci" makes no such claim.

> ".enai" is not any of those with respect to ".e".

It's true that "nai" does not contradict ".e", it contradicts what
follows. I merely meant to show that the kind of negation represented
by "nai" depends on the preceding selma'o.

> That's not really saying anything different from "mi na klama le
> zarci". If you are coming from the store, both "mi na'e klama le zarci"
> and "mi na klama le zarci" are true, but neither affirms that you are
> coming from the store.

However, if I stand in no relation whatever to the store, or more
practically if the relationship I have with it is unrelated to "klama",
then "na'e" is false but "na" is still true. "klama" is not really
scalar, so it's a bad example however you look at it.

> By systematically I meant it follows a pattern in how it changes words
> with the same function. I agree it is not possible to follow the same
> pattern for words with wildly different functions such as, for
> instance, ".e" and "ui".

In that case, spell out what "nai" means when attached to each selma'o,
and write the whole thing up as a proposal. Without that, it's just
loosening for the sake of loosening.

--
John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes,
Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 4:49 PM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías scripsit:

>
>> I don't think you can use "mi na'e klama le zarci" to affirm that you
>> are coming from the store. You can only use it to affirm that the
>> relationship between you and the store, whatever that relationship may
>> be, is other than "klama".
>
> Exactly, and what I am affirming (though not explicitly) is that the
> relationship is "se te klama".

But you can't use "na'e klama" to affirm that. "na'e klama" doesn't
mean "se te klama" even when they can both be true together.

> In English, if I ask "Are you going to
> the store", I may reply "I'm not *going* to the store", with sentential
> stress on "going". This is "na'e", whereas "I'm not going to the store"
> without sentential stress may be "na'e" or "na", depending on context.
> (I don't know how you make this contrast in the Romance languages.)

Same way, that's just focus. If we use "ba'e" for focus, we could
distinguish "ba'e mi na klama le zarci" vs "mi na ba'e klama le zarci"
vs "mi na klama le ba'e zarci", indicating what part of the sentence
is what makes it false.

> This is clearer if we look at sumti scalar negation with "na'e bo".
> "mi klama na'e bo le zarci" definitely affirms that I went somewhere,
> it just wasn't the store.

Yes, just like "mi klama lo na me le zarci" does. "na'e bo" is pretty
much the same as "lo na me".

> "mi na klama le zarci" makes no such claim.

Just like "mi na'e klama le zarci" makes no such claim.

>> That's not really saying anything different from "mi na klama le
>> zarci". If you are coming from the store, both "mi na'e klama le zarci"
>> and "mi na klama le zarci" are true, but neither affirms that you are
>> coming from the store.
>
> However, if I stand in no relation whatever to the store, or more
> practically if the relationship I have with it is unrelated to "klama",
> then "na'e" is false but "na" is still true.

How could you possibly be not going to the market and not be therefore
in a non-going relation to the market? You could, for example, also
own the market, but you would still have to be either going to it or
non-going to it. If "ko'a broda" makes sense, then either it or "ko'a
na'e broda" must be true. They can't both be false unless they are
nonsense..

> "klama" is not really scalar, so it's a bad example however you look at it.
>
>> By systematically I meant it follows a pattern in how it changes words
>> with the same function. I agree it is not possible to follow the same
>> pattern for words with wildly different functions such as, for
>> instance, ".e" and "ui".
>
> In that case, spell out what "nai" means when attached to each selma'o,
> and write the whole thing up as a proposal. Without that, it's just
> loosening for the sake of loosening.

I think someone already did that on the page linked at the start of
this thread.

[Daniel Brockman]

{na'i} is in UI and it "has truth value", no?

I don't have any difficulty understanding the idea of moving {nai} to UI in the long run, as {nai} is a modifier which can be applied to basically every word without changing its syntax, and as per John Cowan it can even appear on its own (I didn't know that was official). All of which fits perfecly into UI.

The motivation would obviously be elimination of some redundant complexity in the grammar, making for a simpler and more flexible language?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/-/zD0_g6AhdRgJ.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.

[Daniel Brockman]

On 8 dec 2012, at 20:49, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Jorge Llambías scripsit:

>
>> I don't think you can use "mi na'e klama le zarci" to affirm that you
>> are coming from the store. You can only use it to affirm that the
>> relationship between you and the store, whatever that relationship may
>> be, is other than "klama".
>
> Exactly, and what I am affirming (though not explicitly) is that the
> relationship is "se te klama". In English, if I ask "Are you going to
> the store", I may reply "I'm not *going* to the store", with sentential
> stress on "going". This is "na'e", whereas "I'm not going to the store"
> without sentential stress may be "na'e" or "na", depending on context.
> (I don't know how you make this contrast in the Romance languages.)
>
> This is clearer if we look at sumti scalar negation with "na'e bo".
> "mi klama na'e bo le zarci" definitely affirms that I went somewhere,
> it just wasn't the store. "mi na klama le zarci" makes no such claim.

Jorge's original claim though was that {mi na klama le zarci} is
equivalent to {na'e klama be fa mi bei le zarci}.

[Daniel Brockman]

*claps*

What an impressively lucid exposition.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.

[John Cowan]

Daniel Brockman scripsit:

> Jorge's original claim though was that {mi na klama le zarci} is
> equivalent to {na'e klama be fa mi bei le zarci}.

Yes, which I deny. There are situations compatible with the first
that are not compatible with the second.

--
A few times, I did some exuberant stomping about, John Cowan
like a hippo auditioning for Riverdance, though co...@ccil.org
I stopped when I thought I heard something at http://ccil.org/~cowan
the far side of the room falling over in rhythm
with my feet. --Joseph Zitt

[la gleki]

doi xorxes, I really think that {nai} shouldn't be moved anywhere. It complicates the grammar for newbies, because it makes semantics not obvious.

So simplifying the grammar means nothing here.

Instead I suggest retaining the grammar of {nai} as it is and create alternative solutions in CAI for each type of negation.

Yes, it will make the vocabulary a bit lengthier but here is where usage will decide without any fear of demolishing the grammar. 

I should note that your other suggestions including deleting {na'u, soi} are nice and should be discussed more frequently.

[la gleki]

1. {lo zmiku cu na'e xendo} is a false statement. Robots can't be kind/unkind or in the middle of that scale. The scale just cannot be applied.

2. {lo zmiku cu na [ja'e] xendo}={lo zmiku cu na na'e xendo}={lo zmiku cu na to'e xendo} is a true statement. The scale is denied.

However, not taking into account the lack of the truth value in {na'i} the second example is the same to me as
3. {lo zmiku cu xendo na'i}

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 9:07 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. {lo zmiku cu na'e xendo} is a false statement. Robots can't be
> kind/unkind or in the middle of that scale. The scale just cannot be
> applied.

In which case, rather than saying that it is false, it might be better
to say "na'i", the statement can't be evaluated as true or false.

> 2. {lo zmiku cu na [ja'e] xendo}={lo zmiku cu na na'e xendo}={lo zmiku cu na
> to'e xendo} is a true statement. The scale is denied.

None of those three statements deny that the scale is applicable, each
of them denies that robots fall in some part of the scale.
You would need "lo zmiku ge na xendo gi nai na'e xendo" to deny the whole scale.

> However, not taking into account the lack of the truth value in {na'i} the
> second example is the same to me as
> 3. {lo zmiku cu xendo na'i}

"na'i" by itself is not all that informative though. It says that
something is wrong with the assumptions of the statement, but there
are usually many things that could go wrong so you would probably need
to follow it with an explanation. You could say:

lo zmiku cu xendo na'i .i zy ge nai xendo gi nai na'e xendo

or:

lo zmiku cu xendo na'i .i zy na ka'e se merli fi lo ka xendo

or:

lo zmiku cu xendo na'i .i zy klani no da lo ka xendo

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:09 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> doi xorxes, I really think that {nai} shouldn't be moved anywhere. It
> complicates the grammar for newbies, because it makes semantics not obvious.
> So simplifying the grammar means nothing here.

I have been a Lojbanist for I lost count of how many years, and I
could not tell you with any certainty, without checking with the
grammar, all the selma'o that can be followed with NAI and all that
can't. So for me there's something wrong with the arbitrary grammar of
NAI because I seem to be incapable of fully learning it.

> Instead I suggest retaining the grammar of {nai} as it is and create
> alternative solutions in CAI for each type of negation.

That wouldn't help much though. "nai" is normally "opposite", but for
some words it is hard to say what its opposite is, or there may be
nothing that could be called its opposite, so some arbitrary notion of
opposite needs to be imposed. Whatever word you choose to create
opposites will have the same problem.

[la gleki]

Now I clearly understand your definition of {na} here.

And I guess J.Cowan disagrees with it.

[la gleki]

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 5:17:55 PM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:09 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> doi xorxes, I really think that {nai} shouldn't be moved anywhere. It
> complicates the grammar for newbies, because it makes semantics not obvious.
> So simplifying the grammar means nothing here.

I have been a Lojbanist for I lost count of how many years,

And I respect you.

 

and I
could not tell you with any certainty, without checking with the
grammar, all the selma'o that can be followed with NAI and all that
can't. So for me there's something wrong with the arbitrary grammar of
NAI because I seem to be incapable of fully learning it.

Imagine a person leraning that {UInai} means the same as {to'e}.

Then ey would use BRIVLA NAI as  to'e BRIVLA.

However, in your table

BRIVLA NAI

=

na'e BRIVLA

This is counter-intuitive.

 

 

> Instead I suggest retaining the grammar of {nai} as it is and create
> alternative solutions in CAI for each type of negation.

That wouldn't help much though. "nai" is normally "opposite", but for
some words it is hard to say what its opposite is, or there may be
nothing that could be called its opposite, so some arbitrary notion of
opposite needs to be imposed. Whatever word you choose to create
opposites will have the same problem.

1. By not using {nai} we'll lose polysemy of {nai}

2. Yes, sometimes it's not possible to tell what {to'e} would mean. Then just don't use such constructions. It's possible to say nonsense in Lojban, isn't it? So why not retin place for such nonsense?

3. There are not so many places where {nai} is allowed.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now I clearly understand your definition of {na} here.
>
> And I guess J.Cowan disagrees with it.

It's a rather inconsequential disagreement. I think we both agree that
whenever the property or relation is applicable, "na" and "na'e" have
the same meaning (other than scope). The question of whether "na"
returns true or undefined when the predicate is not even applicable is
not all that interesting, since either way it's just confusing.

[Pierre Abbat]

On Sunday, December 09, 2012 04:07:48 la gleki wrote:
> 1. {lo zmiku cu na'e xendo} is a false statement. Robots can't be
> kind/unkind or in the middle of that scale. The scale just cannot be
> applied.
> 2. {lo zmiku cu na [ja'e] xendo}={lo zmiku cu na na'e xendo}={lo zmiku cu
> na to'e xendo} is a true statement. The scale is denied.

lo bifce be la .sfeks. zmiku so'i se tarti .i xu lo bifce be la .sfeks. xendo
lo panzi be ri

Which brings up another question. Does "ri" refer to "lo bifce be la .sfeks."
(which is what I meant) or "la .sfeks."? I think it refers to the last finished
sumti which is not a personal pronoun, but these two sumti finish at the same
point in text.

Pierre
--
I believe in Yellow when I'm in Sweden and in Black when I'm in Wales.

[la gleki]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:56:05 PM UTC+4, Pierre Abbat wrote:

On Sunday, December 09, 2012 04:07:48 la gleki wrote:
> 1. {lo zmiku cu na'e xendo} is a false statement. Robots can't be
> kind/unkind or in the middle of that scale. The scale just cannot be
> applied.
> 2. {lo zmiku cu na [ja'e] xendo}={lo zmiku cu na na'e xendo}={lo zmiku cu
> na to'e xendo} is a true statement. The scale is denied.

lo bifce be la .sfeks. zmiku so'i se tarti .i xu lo bifce be la .sfeks. xendo
lo panzi be ri

This is a philosophical question. That I don't want to answer because for me lojban is a live language, and live languages must not have any philosophy.

Which brings up another question. Does "ri" refer to "lo bifce be la .sfeks."
(which is what I meant) or "la .sfeks."? I think it refers to the last finished
sumti which is not a personal pronoun, but these two sumti finish at the same
point in text.

This is a good question but for another thread.

[Daniel Brockman]

From CLL, Chapter 7 (http://dag.github.com/cll/7/6/):

The cmavo “ri” is the simplest of these; it has the same referent as the last complete sumti appearing before the “ri”.

Note also that sumti within other sumti, as in quotations, abstractions, and the like, are counted in the order of their beginnings; thus a lower level sumti is considered to be more recent than a higher level sumti that contains it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.

To post to this group, send email to bpfk...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.

--
Daniel Brockman, designer & developer
Go Interactive <http://gointeractive.se>
http://github.com/dbrock +46706880739

[John Cowan]

Pierre Abbat scripsit:

> Which brings up another question. Does "ri" refer to "lo bifce be
> la .sfeks." (which is what I meant) or "la .sfeks."? I think it
> refers to the last finished sumti which is not a personal pronoun,
> but these two sumti finish at the same point in text.

The former, because it is equivalent to "lo bifce be la sfeks. bei",
and so terminates later.

--
Your worships will perhaps be thinking John Cowan
that it is an easy thing to blow up a dog? http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
[Or] to write a book?
--Don Quixote, Introduction co...@ccil.org

[la gleki]

Now it makes perfect sense.

The only that bothers me is that
{.uinai} means {sei to'e gleki}
whereas
{gleki nai} means {na'e gleki}

which is counterintuitive.

Also not only {nai} but UI4 should be moved to CAI so that we get two selma'o that work similar in syntax but that differ in semantics.

[John Cowan]

la gleki scripsit:

> The only that bothers me is that
> {.uinai} means {sei to'e gleki}

Yes.

> whereas
> {gleki nai} means {na'e gleki}

That's ungrammatical as of right now.

> which is counterintuitive.

-nai means what it is convenient for it to mean in the specific
circumstances in which it is legal.

--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears!
America! America! God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law!
--one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:28 AM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

la gleki scripsit:

> The only that bothers me is that
> {.uinai} means {sei to'e gleki}

Yes.

> whereas
> {gleki nai} means {na'e gleki}

That's ungrammatical as of right now.

So, in other words, {gleki nai} means ---PARSE ERROR---
 

> which is counterintuitive.

-nai means what it is convenient for it to mean in the specific
circumstances in which it is legal.

--
John Cowan  co...@ccil.org   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

O beautiful for patriot's dream that sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam undimmed by human tears!
America! America!  God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control, thy liberty in law!
        --one of the verses not usually taught in U.S. schools

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.

To post to this group, send email to bpfk...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[la gleki]

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 12:30:27 PM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:28 AM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

la gleki scripsit:

> The only that bothers me is that
> {.uinai} means {sei to'e gleki}

Yes.

> whereas
> {gleki nai} means {na'e gleki}

That's ungrammatical as of right now.

So, in other words, {gleki nai} means ---PARSE ERROR---

We are talking about xorxe's proposals  which are counterintuitive as i'm trying to show.

{nai} works fine in logical connectives where it (semantically) means {na}, works well with UI having another meaning.

But those two meanings currently being strictly separated in the mind of nintadni will collide and conflict with each other if xorxe's proposal is applied.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 5:24 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also not only {nai} but UI4 should be moved to CAI so that we get two
> selma'o that work similar in syntax but that differ in semantics.

Identical, not just similar.

UI1, UI2, U3 and so on are the semantic groupings within the one
syntactic class UI.
UI and CAI are in the same syntactic class in everything but name.