WikiDiscuss

---

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 <sumti>} and {no na'e bo
> <sumti>}
> 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"?