--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/2914956.R1SSoXq267%40puma.
--
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+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/86sg7ehrgv.fsf%40cmarib.ramside.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/e61dc0af-1a6b-45b4-9930-acccd73a1a41n%40googlegroups.com.
But they don't mean the same thing. {lo na nanmu} is not the same as {lo na'e nanmu}. {lo na nanmu} is a thing that doesn't {nanmu}. But {na'e} is a *scalar* negator, not a logical one. It implies some sort of scale of {nanmu}itude (lo ni nanmu), and says that what you're seeing is on the negative side of it. Exactly what that would mean I'm not sure I could say for certain. Is the scale {nanmu}↔{ninmu}? In that case, a woman would be {lo na'e nanmu} as well as {lo na nanmu}, but a rock is {lo na nanmu} but not {lo na'e nanmu}. But the scale here is not obvious.
~mark
Hello everybody,
I would like to ask you clarifications on the meaning of the cmavo
{zo'e}, which is defined in the CLL at
https://lojban.github.io/cll/7/7/index.html
<https://lojban.github.io/cll/7/7/index.html> as meaning “the obvious
value”, “whatever I want it to mean but haven’t bothered to figure out,
or figure out how to express”.
Let's consider the following three example sentences:
• [A] {mi tirna zo'e}
• [B] {mi tirna su'o da}
• [C] {(da'o) mi tirna ko'a} (usage of a constant {ko'a} which hasn't
been assigned a value explicitly earlier)
How does [A] semantically differ from [B] and [C]? (I suspect that the
two latters ultimately mean the same thing.)
How [A] should be represented in logical notation?
{zo'e} cannot be a constant as it changes its referent(s) on each
occurrence.
• [B1] {naku mi tirna su'o da}I don't hear anything.
• [C1] {(da'o) naku mi tirna ko'a}I don't hear [whatever it is I don't hear].
I think the equivalence should be ⟪su'o da zo'u naku mi tirna
da⟫ = ⟪(da'o) naku mi tirna ko'a⟫ (as top-level sentences), i.e.
with ⟪su'o da⟫ taking the topmost scope. Actually it should even
scope over the illocution of the sentence (i.e. assertion,
question, command…), because, as you shown in your example
sentences with the interrogative illocutionary marker ⟪xu⟫, ⟪da⟫
is bound under the scope of ⟪xu⟫, unlike ⟪ko'a⟫. A better
equivalence would therefore be:
⟪ca'e mi do brireisku be lo ka (ce'u) jezyje'u lo du'u do tirna
ko'a⟫
= ⟪ca'e su'o da zo'u mi do brireisku be lo ka (ce'u)
jezyje'u lo du'u do tirna da⟫
As for the interpretation of ⟪zo'e⟫ as a function as you
suggested, this is reminiscent of the experimental cmavo ⟪zo'ei⟫,
by the way.
—Ilmen.
• [A] {mi tirna zo'e}
• [B] {mi tirna su'o da}
• [C] {(da'o) mi tirna ko'a} (usage of a constant {ko'a} which hasn't
been assigned a value explicitly earlier)
How does [A] semantically differ from [B] and [C]? (I suspect that the
two latters ultimately mean the same thing.)