WikiDiscuss

Posted by pycyn on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:57 GMT 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.