WikiDiscuss Help

Forums > WikiDiscuss > Wiki page BPFK Section: brivla Negators changed

Wiki page BPFK Section: brivla Negators changed


posts: 152
Use this thread to discuss the Wiki page BPFK Section: brivla Negators changed page.


posts: 152

On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:14:10AM -0700, webmaster@lojban.org wrote:
> ;na'e (NAhE): Non-. Converts a tanru-unit into another tanru-unit with another meaning. With BO, it converts a sumti into another sumti whose referent is other than the referent of the unconverted sumti.

Is that really all that "na'e" does? In that case, it would be perfectly
reasonable to say:

le gerku cu barda gi'e na'e barda

to say that a certain dog is big, and has some other property besides being big
as well.
--
Rob Speer

 



posts: 1912

 
Rob Speer:
>;na'e (NAhE): Non-. Converts a tanru-unit into another tanru-unit with
> another meaning. With BO, it converts a sumti into another sumti whose
> referent is other than the referent of the unconverted sumti.
>
> Is that really all that "na'e" does? In that case, it would be perfectly
> reasonable to say:
>
> le gerku cu barda gi'e na'e barda
>
> to say that a certain dog is big, and has some other property besides being
> big
> as well.

Right, that's one of the differences between {na} and {na'e}. {je'a} and
{na'e} are not incompatible, while {ja'a} and {na}, all other things
being equal, are incompatible.

Or do you think {le gerku cu na'e barda} should entail {le gerku naku barda}?

The definitions are not very complete yet anyway, perhaps something
like "another contextually-relevant meaning"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 



posts: 2388

Not just any other thing/property but one in the same branch (subsumed by the same category concept). This is (a kind of) contrary negation, where yellow is a negation of blue but not of big (can't be both but may be neither). The freer type (where not yellow may be big) is {na}, but has little real use. There are some other negations (not even counting the various uses of {nai}.
Rob Speer wrote:On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:14:10AM -0700, webmaster@lojban.org wrote:
> ;na'e (NAhE): Non-. Converts a tanru-unit into another tanru-unit with another meaning. With BO, it converts a sumti into another sumti whose referent is other than the referent of the unconverted sumti.

Is that really all that "na'e" does? In that case, it would be perfectly
reasonable to say:

le gerku cu barda gi'e na'e barda

to say that a certain dog is big, and has some other property besides being big
as well.
--
Rob Speer

 





posts: 2388

Not just any other thing/property but one in the same branch (subsumed by the same category concept). This is (a kind of) contrary negation, where yellow is a negation of blue but not of big (can't be both but may be neither). The freer type (where not yellow may be big) is {na}, but has little real use. There are some other negations (not even counting the various uses of {nai}.
Rob Speer wrote:On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 11:14:10AM -0700, webmaster@lojban.org wrote:
> ;na'e (NAhE): Non-. Converts a tanru-unit into another tanru-unit with another meaning. With BO, it converts a sumti into another sumti whose referent is other than the referent of the unconverted sumti.

Is that really all that "na'e" does? In that case, it would be perfectly
reasonable to say:

le gerku cu barda gi'e na'e barda

to say that a certain dog is big, and has some other property besides being big
as well.
--
Rob Speer

 





posts: 152

On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 12:48:17PM -0700, John E Clifford wrote:
> Not just any other thing/property but one in the same branch (subsumed by the same category concept). This is (a kind of) contrary negation, where yellow is a negation of blue but not of big (can't be both but may be neither). The freer type (where not yellow may be big) is {na}, but has little real use. There are some other negations (not even counting the various uses of {nai}.

That makes sense, and it works. I was about to conclude that {na'e} had no
purpose except to act like {na} with sensible scope (but there's {naku} for
that).
--
Rob Speer

 



posts: 2388

xorxes:

> !Proposed definitions
>
> ;na (NA): Contradictory negator. Negates
> the bridi in which it appears. It has scope
> over quantifiers that follow.
>
> ;na'e (NAhE): Non-. Contrary negator.
> Converts a tanru-unit into another tanru-unit
> with a complementary meaning, such that they
> can't both be true at the same time. With BO,
> it converts a sumti into another sumti whose
> referent is the complement of the unconverted
> sumti.
>
> salci fa ro na’ebo le mlatu
>
> le se jimpe be mi cu se jimpe no na'ebo mi
>
> co'o ro na'ebo la casgusmis
>
> ;to'e (NAhE): Opposite. Un-. Converts a
> tanru-unit into another tanru-unit with
> opposite meaning. With BO, it converts a sumti
> into another sumti whose referent is opposite
> of the referent of the unconverted sumti.
>
> ;no'e (NAhE): Neutral. Converts a
> tanru-unit into another tanru-unit with neutral
> meaning between the original meaning and its
> opposite. With BO, it converts a sumti into
> another sumti whose referent is neutral between
> the referent of the unconverted sumti and its
> opposite.
>
>
> !!Formal definitions
>

>
> NAhE BO sumti
>
> na'e bo sumti lo drata be sumti
> to'e bo sumti lo dukti be sumti
> no'e bo sumti lo nutli be lo te dukti be
> sumti bei to'e sumti
>

>
>
> !!Notes
>
> # NAhEs can also be used with tags and
> operators, and NAhE BO with operands.
> # Here I am sketching an
> argument for restricting the scope of NA to be
> just over those bridi operators that follow it.
> The traditional interpretation is that it has
> scope over all other bridi operators, including
> those that precede it in the bridi.
>
The hardest part of this section is going to be
to explain the differences among {na}, {na'e} and
{to'e} — indeed, the applications of each, never
mind focusing on the differences. How is a
contrary different from a contradictory when
applied to a predicate or a term? What is an
opposite of something that does not appear to be
scalar or circular? What is a neutral position
even when opposites are clear ("The Golden Mean
is best"?)? What do any of these concepts mean
when applied to things rather than properties or
propositions? There are some clear cases for
each, but generalization is not clear. Do
semantic fields play a role here and what are the
crucial factors (even if fields are involved
somehow)? Until these questions are dealt with,
this category seems basically unattended.

 



posts: 1912

 
pc:
> The hardest part of this section is going to be
> to explain the differences among {na}, {na'e} and
> {to'e} — indeed, the applications of each, never
> mind focusing on the differences.

The differences are not too difficult. {na} negates
a bridi, a whole sentence, so it is clearly different
from the other two that change a brivla into another
brivla.

> How is a
> contrary different from a contradictory when
> applied to a predicate or a term?

{na} is never applied to predicates or terms,
always to predications. {na'e} is never applied
to predications, always to predicates or terms.

> What is an
> opposite of something that does not appear to be
> scalar or circular?

Nonsense, probably.

> What is a neutral position
> even when opposites are clear ("The Golden Mean
> is best"?)?

When opposites are clear, the neutral position is usually
also clear. When it's not clear, it's not clear, there's
probably not much more to say.

> What do any of these concepts mean
> when applied to things rather than properties or
> propositions?

{na'e bo} is fairly clear, and has seen quite
a lot of usage.

I don't have much of an idea as to what {to'e bo} and
{no'e bo} mean.

> There are some clear cases for
> each, but generalization is not clear. Do
> semantic fields play a role here and what are the
> crucial factors (even if fields are involved
> somehow)? Until these questions are dealt with,
> this category seems basically unattended.

I still have to add examples, but I'm not sure I'll be
able to flesh out the definitions themselves much more than
what's there. (Except for a few more things I have to write
for {na}, but not so much on its meaning as on its syntax.)
I welcome suggestions for improvement.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 




posts: 2388

 


wrote:

>
> pc:
> > The hardest part of this section is going to
> be
> > to explain the differences among {na}, {na'e}
> and
> > {to'e} — indeed, the applications of each,
> never
> > mind focusing on the differences.
>
> The differences are not too difficult. {na}
> negates
> a bridi, a whole sentence, so it is clearly
> different
> from the other two that change a brivla into
> another
> brivla.

Well, {naku} at least seems to modify predicates
(and does in Logic, for whatever that is worth)
and has to to give a consistent story about the
difference between {na} and {naku} — which you
have seemed to want for other purposes before.
If {na} and {naku} differ only in where they can
occur, but have the same function throughout,
then this problem fades away, but some subtle
difference in quantifiers, for example, will
arise, requiring just the sort of messy
recalculations that people have objected too (as
too hard, usually) in the past.

> > How is a
> > contrary different from a contradictory when
> > applied to a predicate or a term?
>
> {na} is never applied to predicates or terms,
> always to predications. {na'e} is never applied
> to predications, always to predicates or terms.

see above.

> > What is an
> > opposite of something that does not appear to
> be
> > scalar or circular?
>
> Nonsense, probably.
>
> > What is a neutral position
> > even when opposites are clear ("The Golden
> Mean
> > is best"?)?
>
> When opposites are clear, the neutral position
> is usually
> also clear. When it's not clear, it's not
> clear, there's
> probably not much more to say.

I think it is rarely clear short of a rule: is
the neutral between black and white gray or
transparent or reddish orange? Each is possible
-- actual in some contexts (which contexts are
not readily specifiable and would not work for
even the neutral between red and green, supposing
them to be opposites).

>
> > What do any of these concepts mean
> > when applied to things rather than properties
> or
> > propositions?
>
> {na'e bo} is fairly clear, and has seen quite
> a lot of usage.

Then you need to summarize the usage. All the
example I could find were of people asking what
the hell it meant.

> I don't have much of an idea as to what {to'e
> bo} and
> {no'e bo} mean.
>
> > There are some clear cases for
> > each, but generalization is not clear. Do
> > semantic fields play a role here and what are
> the
> > crucial factors (even if fields are involved
> > somehow)? Until these questions are dealt
> with,
> > this category seems basically unattended.

I taike back the bit about there being clear
cases of each.

> I still have to add examples, but I'm not sure
> I'll be
> able to flesh out the definitions themselves
> much more than
> what's there. (Except for a few more things I
> have to write
> for {na}, but not so much on its meaning as on
> its syntax.)
> I welcome suggestions for improvement.
>
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>

 



posts: 1912

 
pc:
> Well, {naku} at least seems to modify predicates
> (and does in Logic, for whatever that is worth)

Maybe we are using the word "predicate" differently.
A predicate, as I'm using it, is the thing that takes
arguments and, with the arguments, forms a sentence
(or formula). {naku} negates a sentence, or turns
a sentence into another sentence. {na'e}
changes one predicate into another predicate.

If that's an incorrect use of "predicate", let's
stick to Lojban terms: {na'e} modifies a brivla,
not a bridi. {naku} operates on a bridi, not on a
brivla. Whatever they are called, they never operate
on the same type of object.

{na} is the same as {naku} in this regard. It may
differ in the order in which it operates with respect
to other bridi operators (quantifiers and connectives).

> and has to to give a consistent story about the
> difference between {na} and {naku} — which you
> have seemed to want for other purposes before.

{naku} has never been controversial as far as I know,
I hope it is not becoming controversial now.

The only controversy about {na} has been about where
an equivalent {naku} would occur. I don't think up
to now anyone had suggested that {na} and {naku}
differed in anything but scope.

> If {na} and {naku} differ only in where they can
> occur, but have the same function throughout,
> then this problem fades away, but some subtle
> difference in quantifiers, for example, will
> arise, requiring just the sort of messy
> recalculations that people have objected too (as
> too hard, usually) in the past.

I really don't see what additional difference you
find between {na} and {naku}.

> > When opposites are clear, the neutral position
> > is usually
> > also clear. When it's not clear, it's not
> > clear, there's
> > probably not much more to say.
>
> I think it is rarely clear short of a rule: is
> the neutral between black and white gray or
> transparent or reddish orange?

Hispanic. :-)
Or maybe Asian...

 
> > {na'e bo} is fairly clear, and has seen quite
> > a lot of usage.
>
> Then you need to summarize the usage. All the
> example I could find were of people asking what
> the hell it meant.

There are three example sentences already on the page.

In fact {ro na'e bo } and {no na'e bo }
are good ways to do "all but ..." and "none but ...".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 




posts: 2388

 


wrote:

>
> pc:
> > Well, {naku} at least seems to modify
> predicates
> > (and does in Logic, for whatever that is
> worth)
>
> Maybe we are using the word "predicate"
> differently.
> A predicate, as I'm using it, is the thing that
> takes
> arguments and, with the arguments, forms a
> sentence
> (or formula). {naku} negates a sentence, or
> turns
> a sentence into another sentence. {na'e}
> changes one predicate into another predicate.
>
I have no problem with the distinction you are
using, but you seem to think it is an absolute
one. In fact, in Lojban at least, every
predicate is a sentence and far and away most
sentences are predicates. So you need something
more than that mark to explian the difference
between the uses of {na} and {na'e}. I suppose
you want a scope one, but then you have to allow
that {naku} at least sometimes has only a
predicate in its scope and so must be modifying
it.

> If that's an incorrect use of "predicate",
> let's
> stick to Lojban terms: {na'e} modifies a
> brivla,
> not a bridi. {naku} operates on a bridi, not on
> a
> brivla. Whatever they are called, they never
> operate
> on the same type of object.

See above.

>
> {na} is the same as {naku} in this regard. It
> may
> differ in the order in which it operates with
> respect
> to other bridi operators (quantifiers and
> connectives).

Is that the whole difference? It does not seem
so in logical terms: {naku ko'a klama} allows as
first approximation anything incompatible with
{ko'a klama}, {naku ko'a zasti}, for example.
But this is not allowed by {ko'a naku klama},
since {ko'a} needs a referent in this case though
not in the earlier (it is outside the negative
scope). To be sure, when the analysis goes on,
{naku ko'a zasti} will not do, since {ko'a zasti}
is compatible with {naku ko'a klama}. So some
refinements are needed. It is those tht need to
be laid out, since they do not arise in the case
of {ko'a na'e klama} and, I suppose, {ko'a to'e
klama} (hard to imagine since {klama} seems to
encompass the two opposites here).

 
> > and has to to give a consistent story about
> the
> > difference between {na} and {naku} — which
> you
> > have seemed to want for other purposes
> before.
>
> {naku} has never been controversial as far as I
> know,
> I hope it is not becoming controversial now.
>
> The only controversy about {na} has been about
> where
> an equivalent {naku} would occur. I don't think
> up
> to now anyone had suggested that {na} and
> {naku}
> differed in anything but scope.

But scope is just what the problem is here, when
is the scope the sentence and when (in cases
where the distinction is useful) a predicate? If
you want that {naku} is just sentential negation
wherever it occurs, then the same problem arises
in figuring out what is the sentence it negates.
It is usually not just what is left when the
{naku} is dropped, as that will typically get
quantifiers (and tenses and existence conditons
and so on)wrong. I suppose that the distinction
you want is about length of scope not actual
scope: {na(ku)}takes as long a scope as it can
get within a sentence, {na'e} takes just the next
complete structure, typically a brivla or a
marked tanru — and with {bu} apparently a sumti.
Is {na bu} a possibility to contradictorily
negate a term? Probably not but {ko'a klama naku
ko'e} is and seems to function like {na'e} but
with some mysterious additional meaning: a goes
to someplace other that b, such that not going to
this place would be going to b, which makes sense
in some restricted cases anyhow.

>
> > If {na} and {naku} differ only in where they
> can
> > occur, but have the same function throughout,
> > then this problem fades away, but some subtle
> > difference in quantifiers, for example, will
> > arise, requiring just the sort of messy
> > recalculations that people have objected too
> (as
> > too hard, usually) in the past.
>
> I really don't see what additional difference
> you
> find between {na} and {naku}.
>
No additonal ones; we haven't dealt with the one
we know about yet, except for some quantifier
cases.

 
> > > When opposites are clear, the neutral
> position
> > > is usually
> > > also clear. When it's not clear, it's not
> > > clear, there's
> > > probably not much more to say.
> >
> > I think it is rarely clear short of a rule:
> is
> > the neutral between black and white gray or
> > transparent or reddish orange?
>
> Hispanic. :-)
> Or maybe Asian...

Nice.
>
> > > {na'e bo} is fairly clear, and has seen
> quite
> > > a lot of usage.
> >
> > Then you need to summarize the usage. All
> the
> > example I could find were of people asking
> what
> > the hell it meant.
>
> There are three example sentences already on
> the page.
>
> In fact {ro na'e bo } and {no na'e bo
> }
> are good ways to do "all but ..." and "none but
> ...".
>
Yes, these two — which encompass all the example
given — are clear, though not why they are
called contrary — as opposed to contradictory --
negation. There is no case that is neither the
group addressed nor Robin (in the third example),
the usual mark of contrariness (not both true but
possibly both false).
And other examples, that are not "what the hell
does it mean"?

 



posts: 1912

 
pc:
> > A predicate, as I'm using it, is the thing that
> > takes
> > arguments and, with the arguments, forms a
> > sentence
> > (or formula). {naku} negates a sentence, or
> > turns
> > a sentence into another sentence. {na'e}
> > changes one predicate into another predicate.
> >
> I have no problem with the distinction you are
> using, but you seem to think it is an absolute
> one. In fact, in Lojban at least, every
> predicate is a sentence and far and away most
> sentences are predicates.

I'm afraid we are speaking different languages.

The distinction I make is between "bridi" and "brivla",
where a bridi is the kind of thing that can have truth
values, which a brivla cannot have.

So you need something
> more than that mark to explian the difference
> between the uses of {na} and {na'e}. I suppose
> you want a scope one, but then you have to allow
> that {naku} at least sometimes has only a
> predicate in its scope and so must be modifying
> it.

{naku} always has a full bridi in its scope:
it takes a bridi and returns a new bridi.

{na'e} never acts on a bridi. It takes a brivla
and returns a new brivla.

 
> > {na} is the same as {naku} in this regard. It
> > may
> > differ in the order in which it operates with
> > respect
> > to other bridi operators (quantifiers and
> > connectives).
>
> Is that the whole difference?

Yes.

> > The only controversy about {na} has been about
> > where
> > an equivalent {naku} would occur. I don't think
> > up
> > to now anyone had suggested that {na} and
> > {naku}
> > differed in anything but scope.
>
> But scope is just what the problem is here, when
> is the scope the sentence and when (in cases
> where the distinction is useful) a predicate?

The scope of na/naku is always the bridi, never the brivla.

If
> you want that {naku} is just sentential negation
> wherever it occurs, then the same problem arises
> in figuring out what is the sentence it negates.

That's what the reduced form is for. In that form it
is very clear which sentence it negates.

> It is usually not just what is left when the
> {naku} is dropped, as that will typically get
> quantifiers (and tenses and existence conditons
> and so on)wrong.

Right. That's why I'm doing the reduced form exercise.

I suppose that the distinction
> you want is about length of scope not actual
> scope: {na(ku)}takes as long a scope as it can
> get within a sentence, {na'e} takes just the next
> complete structure, typically a brivla or a
> marked tanru — and with {bu} apparently a sumti.

{naku} operates on a sentence. The reduced form shows
which sentence.

{na'e} operates on a brivla (or tanru). It never operates on
a sentence. Which brivla it operates on is already obvious
from the parse, so there is no need for transformations here.

{na'ebo} operates on a term, also obvious which one.

> Is {na bu} a possibility to contradictorily
> negate a term?

Nope.

> Probably not but {ko'a klama naku
> ko'e} is and seems to function like {na'e} but
> with some mysterious additional meaning: a goes
> to someplace other that b, such that not going to
> this place would be going to b, which makes sense
> in some restricted cases anyhow.

{ko'a klama naku ko'e} is simply {naku zo'u ko'a klama ko'e}.
There are no other bridi operators to interact with {naku}
here.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 




posts: 2388

 


wrote:

>
> pc:
> > > A predicate, as I'm using it, is the thing
> that
> > > takes
> > > arguments and, with the arguments, forms a
> > > sentence
> > > (or formula). {naku} negates a sentence, or
> > > turns
> > > a sentence into another sentence. {na'e}
> > > changes one predicate into another
> predicate.
> > >
> > I have no problem with the distinction you
> are
> > using, but you seem to think it is an
> absolute
> > one. In fact, in Lojban at least, every
> > predicate is a sentence and far and away most
> > sentences are predicates.
>
> I'm afraid we are speaking different languages.
>
> The distinction I make is between "bridi" and
> "brivla",
> where a bridi is the kind of thing that can
> have truth
> values, which a brivla cannot have.
>
OK. But in a given context, how do you tell
which it is? {mlatu}, for example, standing
alone might be either and it is not obvious to me
that {na mlatu} clarifies the issue.

> So you need something
> > more than that mark to explian the difference
> > between the uses of {na} and {na'e}. I
> suppose
> > you want a scope one, but then you have to
> allow
> > that {naku} at least sometimes has only a
> > predicate in its scope and so must be
> modifying
> > it.
>
> {naku} always has a full bridi in its scope:
> it takes a bridi and returns a new bridi.
>
Now I do think we are in different languages, the
interesting question being what "scope" means.
You have amintained often enough what I would put
(and thought you had put as well) that the scope
of {naku} is everything to the right of that
occurrence in a sentence. I don't really believe
you have changed this view (it would seem to me
to redouble the confusion that using {naku} was
meant to alleviate), but I don't know how you
would put it now.
Of course, if we start with a sentence (as we
usually do), then {na'e} converts one sentence
into another as much as {na(ku)} does, though
perhpas the locus of its action is often narrower
than that of {na}. Notice that {na} is not
restricted to things that are true or false,
since {lo na broda} is an OK construction — an
another case of predicate scope.

> {na'e} never acts on a bridi. It takes a brivla
> and returns a new brivla.
>
And thus a sentence and a sentence.
>
> > > {na} is the same as {naku} in this regard.
> It
> > > may
> > > differ in the order in which it operates
> with
> > > respect
> > > to other bridi operators (quantifiers and
> > > connectives).
> >
> > Is that the whole difference?
>
> Yes.
>
> > > The only controversy about {na} has been
> about
> > > where
> > > an equivalent {naku} would occur. I don't
> think
> > > up
> > > to now anyone had suggested that {na} and
> > > {naku}
> > > differed in anything but scope.
> >
> > But scope is just what the problem is here,
> when
> > is the scope the sentence and when (in cases
> > where the distinction is useful) a predicate?
>
>
> The scope of na/naku is always the bridi, never
> the brivla.
>
I guess I need to know what "scope" means to you
and how you would describe the difference between
{mi naku broda} and {mi na'e broda} — without
prejudging the issue of "scope" in your sense.

> If
> > you want that {naku} is just sentential
> negation
> > wherever it occurs, then the same problem
> arises
> > in figuring out what is the sentence it
> negates.
>
> That's what the reduced form is for. In that
> form it
> is very clear which sentence it negates.

I am now not at all sure you can do what you want
to do with this: how would you differentiate
between {mi na klama ta} and {mi naku klama ta}
if both negate the whole sentence? Or do all
terms have to be fronted? The difference seems to
be betweeen {mi zo'u naku 1 klama ta} (with "1"
to be lexed any of severaal ways)and {naku mi
klama ta} but then, as expected, the sentence
which {naku} negates is different from the one
{na} does (though at least cases like this seem
to fit easily into algorithms). Indeed, {naku}
negates a preicate , {klama ta} into which an
external term has been inserted, only
incidentally different from {na'e klama}
logically.

>
> > It is usually not just what is left when the
> > {naku} is dropped, as that will typically get
> > quantifiers (and tenses and existence
> conditons
> > and so on)wrong.
>
> Right. That's why I'm doing the reduced form
> exercise.
>
> I suppose that the distinction
> > you want is about length of scope not actual
> > scope: {na(ku)}takes as long a scope as it
> can
> > get within a sentence, {na'e} takes just the
> next
> > complete structure, typically a brivla or a
> > marked tanru — and with {bu} apparently a
> sumti.
>
> {naku} operates on a sentence. The reduced form
> shows
> which sentence.
>
> {na'e} operates on a brivla (or tanru). It
> never operates on
> a sentence.

This seems to be a logically irrelevant
distinction, but at the best of times it does not
show that {na(ku)} does not modify preeicates,
which is the crucial point at the moment.

Which brivla it operates on is
> already obvious
> from the parse, so there is no need for
> transformations here.
>
> {na'ebo} operates on a term, also obvious which
> one.
>
> > Is {na bu} a possibility to contradictorily
> > negate a term?
>
> Nope.

The parser accepts it (with an inserted BOI).

> > Probably not but {ko'a klama naku
> > ko'e} is and seems to function like {na'e}
> but
> > with some mysterious additional meaning: a
> goes
> > to someplace other that b, such that not
> going to
> > this place would be going to b, which makes
> sense
> > in some restricted cases anyhow.
>
> {ko'a klama naku ko'e} is simply {naku zo'u
> ko'a klama ko'e}.
> There are no other bridi operators to interact
> with {naku}
> here.
>
Ah, here with have a fundamental disagreement
(probably noted already above); I would say it
comes from {ko'a zo'u naku 1 klama ko'e} at
least, and, indeed, needs to get the {klama} left
of the {naku} as well: it is not just that "a
goes to b" is false (which might be the case if a
didn't exist, for example, or didn't go anywhere)
but that it is false because a goes somewhere
else, that where absolutely unspecified (unlike
{na'e} which implies a range in mind or so).

 



posts: 1912

 
pc:
> > {naku} always has a full bridi in its scope:
> > it takes a bridi and returns a new bridi.
> >
> Now I do think we are in different languages, the
> interesting question being what "scope" means.
> You have amintained often enough what I would put
> (and thought you had put as well) that the scope
> of {naku} is everything to the right of that
> occurrence in a sentence.

"Everything" being "every other bridi operator", everything
that operates on a bridi: i.e quantifiers and logical
connectives.

> Notice that {na} is not
> restricted to things that are true or false,
> since {lo na broda} is an OK construction — an
> another case of predicate scope.

Here {na} is embedded in the description selbri:
{lo na broda} = {zo'e noi naku zo'u ke'a broda}

Even if you don't like this particular expansion, in whatever
expansion you use presumably {na} will be negating a subordinate
description bridi.

> > > Is {na bu} a possibility to contradictorily
> > > negate a term?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> The parser accepts it (with an inserted BOI).

{nabu} is a lerfu, a term by itself.

I assumed you meant to type {na bo}, analogous to {na'e bo},
but that doesn't work.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 




posts: 2388

 


wrote:

>
> pc:
> > > {naku} always has a full bridi in its
> scope:
> > > it takes a bridi and returns a new bridi.
> > >
> > Now I do think we are in different languages,
> the
> > interesting question being what "scope"
> means.
> > You have amintained often enough what I would
> put
> > (and thought you had put as well) that the
> scope
> > of {naku} is everything to the right of that
> > occurrence in a sentence.
>
> "Everything" being "every other bridi
> operator", everything
> that operates on a bridi: i.e quantifiers and
> logical
> connectives.
>

You mean that the scope is discontinuous, that
there are places after the {naku} that are not in
the scope of the negation (but would suddenly
become so if a simple term were replaced by a
variable, for example)? I suppose you can say
that but it sounds odd. I think that all you
want is that somethings in the scope of a
negation are unaffected by it and, in particular,
its movement. I agreee with that, but maintain
that brivla and sumti need not be among those
unaffected bits, that meaningful content is lost
by exempting them.

 
> > Notice that {na} is not
> > restricted to things that are true or false,
> > since {lo na broda} is an OK construction --
> an
> > another case of predicate scope.
>
> Here {na} is embedded in the description
> selbri:
> {lo na broda} = {zo'e noi naku zo'u ke'a broda}
>
>
> Even if you don't like this particular
> expansion, in whatever
> expansion you use presumably {na} will be
> negating a subordinate
> description bridi.
>
And this differs from {na'e} how? In a given
sentence, every occurrence of {na'e} is also in
some bridi. I do, of course, agree with what I
take it you are trying to say, that {na} has some
whole bridi as its scope (in some sense) while
{na'e} has at most a selbri. What I disagree
with is the inference from that to the claim that
they have radically different functions. {na(ku)}
means either that some sentence is false or that
its complement is true and that latter is
essentially the role of {na'e} and {to'e}, with
differing restrictions on what the complement
involves in addition.

 
> > > > Is {na bu} a possibility to while
> contradictorily
> > > > negate a term?
> > >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > The parser accepts it (with an inserted BOI).
>
> {nabu} is a lerfu, a term by itself.
>
> I assumed you meant to type {na bo}, analogous
> to {na'e bo},
> but that doesn't work.

I did indeed. Interstingly, however, I cannot
find {na bu} anywhere — I suppose it means "~",
though. I note that {na'e ku} fror example is
also unlisted, which raises an interesting
question whether bringing the two negations into
a single class would clarify matters a bit; it
appears that it would interfere with no usage but
generate some new ones, covering cases that now
are apparently somewhat obscure.

 




posts: 1912

 
pc:
> I do, of course, agree with what I
> take it you are trying to say, that {na} has some
> whole bridi as its scope (in some sense) while
> {na'e} has at most a selbri.

Good.

> What I disagree
> with is the inference from that to the claim that
> they have radically different functions.

I'll settle for plain different functions.

> {na(ku)}
> means either that some sentence is false or that
> its complement is true and that latter is
> essentially the role of {na'e} and {to'e}, with
> differing restrictions on what the complement
> involves in addition.

Yes, but {naku} can negate quantified and connected
sentences, and {na'e} can't. {na'e} can negate
just part of the selbri — {na'e broda brode} is
{(na'e broda) brode} — and {na} can't. {na} and {na'e}
may be the same when: {na} negates a bare sentence
(by that I mean that no quantifier or connective
operates on the sentence before {na}) and {na'e} negates
a complete selbri. At that point they may touch.

> I note that {na'e ku} fror example is
> also unlisted,

Right, because {na'e} is not a tag. A tag attaches
to a selbri, whereas {na'e} attaches to a brivla,
i.e. a selbri component.

> which raises an interesting
> question whether bringing the two negations into
> a single class would clarify matters a bit; it
> appears that it would interfere with no usage but
> generate some new ones, covering cases that now
> are apparently somewhat obscure.

Maybe for LoCCan III. Probably not a possibility for
Lojban. But it might be interesting to see if it can be
done from the point of view of the syntax. I'm not sure
either way.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com

 




posts: 2388

 


wrote:

>
> pc:
> > I do, of course, agree with what I
> > take it you are trying to say, that {na} has
> some
> > whole bridi as its scope (in some sense)
> while
> > {na'e} has at most a selbri.
>
> Good.
>
> > What I disagree
> > with is the inference from that to the claim
> that
> > they have radically different functions.
>
> I'll settle for plain different functions.

Good. But they are both negations and negations
related (apparently) in a number of ways, which
the grammar — as youread it — only partly
shows.
>
> > {na(ku)}
> > means either that some sentence is false or
> that
> > its complement is true and that latter is
> > essentially the role of {na'e} and {to'e},
> with
> > differing restrictions on what the complement
> > involves in addition.
>
> Yes, but {naku} can negate quantified and
> connected
> sentences, and {na'e} can't. {na'e} can negate
> just part of the selbri — {na'e broda brode}
> is
> {(na'e broda) brode} — and {na} can't. {na}
> and {na'e}
> may be the same when: {na} negates a bare
> sentence
> (by that I mean that no quantifier or
> connective
> operates on the sentence before {na}) and
> {na'e} negates
> a complete selbri. At that point they may
> touch.

As noted earlier, these seem accidental factors
of the grammar. There is nothing inherent in
{na'e} to prevent these other moves other than
the peculiarity of its grammar (relative to that
of {na}). One could with some effort and
ingenuity achieve the results of those
modifications in very periphrastic ways. So they
are sayable, I think.

>
> > I note that {na'e ku} fror example is
> > also unlisted,
>
> Right, because {na'e} is not a tag. A tag
> attaches
> to a selbri, whereas {na'e} attaches to a
> brivla,
> i.e. a selbri component.
>
> > which raises an interesting
> > question whether bringing the two negations
> into
> > a single class would clarify matters a bit;
> it
> > appears that it would interfere with no usage
> but
> > generate some new ones, covering cases that
> now
> > are apparently somewhat obscure.
>
> Maybe for LoCCan III. Probably not a
> possibility for
> Lojban. But it might be interesting to see if
> it can be
> done from the point of view of the syntax. I'm
> not sure
> either way.
As noted, Lojban appears to have the capability
that this envisions, it just can't do it tidily.
The result of that seems to be that some aspects
of even {na} go underused or reported — the role
of the placement of {naku} when quantifiers and
connectives are not involved, for example: you
seem to think there is none (and consequently
that descriptions are constants) for example.

 


Show posts: