Lojban In General

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I suggest this conversation has now grown well beyond the limits of
> > lojban-beginners list.
>
> (I am responding in lojban-list.)
>
> > Suffice it to say that while the use of na is
> > well-defined in simple bridi, its meaning in very complicated sentence
> with
> > both existential qualifiers and bridi tails is not well-defined.
>
> If {su'o da na broda gi'e brode} counts as a "very complicated
> sentence", then the characterization of Lojban as "spoken predicate
> logic" is almost a sham. The relative scopes of quantifiers, logical
> connectives and negation should be very straightforward.
>

No, xorxes. I think it is straightforward. So do you. We just reach
opposite conclusions about how it is to be parsed. You and I have had
extremely long e-mail exchanges about this very subject (which I don't fell
like revisiting right now, because we agreed to disagree), so in the
interest of not driving away lojban beginners who might throw up their hands
at the idea of ever learning lojban, I felt it best not to be talked about
there. The question in that thread was about how "na" and "na'e" differed.
The question was answered (by both you (who ended up having to honestly
write a second letter saying that your first statement, contradictory the
CLL and presented unqualified to beginners in lojban, was in fact only
"depends who you ask") and me), so it was time to move on.

--gejyspa

>> Suffice it to say that while the use of na is
>> well-defined in simple bridi, its meaning in very complicated sentence with
>> both existential qualifiers and bridi tails is not well-defined.
>
> If {su'o da na broda gi'e brode} counts as a "very complicated
> sentence", then the characterization of Lojban as "spoken predicate
> logic" is almost a sham. The relative scopes of quantifiers, logical
> connectives and negation should be very straightforward.

Spontaneous thoughts: Since {su'o da broda gi'e na brode} ought (?) to
mean {su'o da broda gi'e nai brode}, then {su'o da na broda gi'e brode}
ought to mean {su'o da broda na gi'e brode}.

That would be consistent with e.g. {su'o da ca broda gi'e brode}
meaning {su'o da ca broda .i je da brode} (which I assume it does?).

Of course the scoping of {na} is a controversial issue; I'm just thinking
out loud and I haven't followed the discussion on lojban-beginners.

One can always say {su'o da na ge broda gi brode} to mean the other thing.

--
Daniel Brockman
daniel@brockman.se

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Daniel Brockman
<daniel@gointeractive.se> wrote:
>
> Spontaneous thoughts: Since {su'o da broda gi'e na brode} ought (?) to
> mean {su'o da broda gi'e nai brode}, then {su'o da na broda gi'e brode}
> ought to mean {su'o da broda na gi'e brode}.

I think (though I could be wrong) that everybody agrees with that.

The question is how does the scope of {na} work (in any of those
versions) with respect to the scope of {su'o}. In other words:

(1) su'o da na broda gi'u brode

(2) su'o da na broda

Do (1) and (2) have the same truth value?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> The relative scopes of quantifiers, logical
>> connectives and negation should be very straightforward.
>
> No, xorxes. I think it is straightforward. So do you. We just reach
> opposite conclusions about how it is to be parsed.

Which shows it is not so straightforward.

> The question in that thread was about how "na" and "na'e" differed.
> The question was answered (by both you (who ended up having to honestly
> write a second letter saying that your first statement, contradictory the
> CLL and presented unqualified to beginners in lojban, was in fact only
> "depends who you ask") and me), so it was time to move on.

Please read my first answer carefully again. It was not contradictory
to the CLL. I was very careful in avoiding the contentious issue until
someone brought it up explicitly.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

The claim to be spoken predicate logic has always been a bit of a Loglan/Lojban joke, second only perhaps to the claim to be a tool for testing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.The lack of clear usable scope rules — right hand end problems — is only one of many deviations, trivial and major. Most of the deviances are said to arise from the demands of actual languages in use. This is a questionable claim, but, if true, could bre accomodated in many other ways than the current versions (some maybe even simpler or more usable), Since scope is not — in Lojban — a syntactic category, the problems here do not affect the claim or unambiguousness, but do create other sorts of ambiguity.

--- Original Message --
From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 7:21:17 AM
Subject: lojban Re: lojban-beginners Re: About the negators

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suggest this conversation has now grown well beyond the limits of
> lojban-beginners list.

(I am responding in lojban-list.)

> Suffice it to say that while the use of na is
> well-defined in simple bridi, its meaning in very complicated sentence with
> both existential qualifiers and bridi tails is not well-defined.

If {su'o da na broda gi'e brode} counts as a "very complicated
sentence", then the characterization of Lojban as "spoken predicate
logic" is almost a sham. The relative scopes of quantifiers, logical
connectives and negation should be very straightforward.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

Here is a hopefully more clear restatement of the problem. Given {su'o
da na broda gi'e na brode}, we can rewrite it in purely prenex form as
follows:

su'o da zo'u ge na ku zo'u da broda gi na ku zo'u de broda
"There is some x which is neither broda nor brode."

Applying De Morgan's laws, we can move the negation through "ge",
changing it to "ga", and then through "su'o", changing it to "ro":

na ku ro da zo'u ga da broda gi da brode
"Not every x is broda or brode."

So far so good. I doubt anyone objecs to any of that. The original
"na"s can't be taken to have scope over "su'o" because "gi'e" will
block them.

Now let's consider just {su'o da na broda}. The obvious prenex
rewriting, if we hadn't read of any special rule, is:

su'o da zo'u na ku zo'u da broda
"There is some x which is not broda."

na ku ro da zo'u da broda
"Not every x is broda."

which pretty much would agree with the case with "gi'e".

But for some inexplicable reason, the official rule is that in this
case "na" jumps over "su'o" without changing it, and "su'o da na
broda" has to be read as "no x is a broda". The special scope rule
for "na" is not applicable in general, so why have it at all? Just to
make things complicated?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>wrote:

> Here is a hopefully more clear restatement of the problem. Given {su'o
> da na broda gi'e na brode}, we can rewrite it in purely prenex form as
> follows:
>
> su'o da zo'u ge na ku zo'u da broda gi na ku zo'u de broda
> "There is some x which is neither broda nor brode."
>
> Applying De Morgan's laws, we can move the negation through "ge",
> changing it to "ga", and then through "su'o", changing it to "ro":
>
> na ku ro da zo'u ga da broda gi da brode
> "Not every x is broda or brode."
>
> So far so good. I doubt anyone objecs to any of that. The original
> "na"s can't be taken to have scope over "su'o" because "gi'e" will
> block them.
>
> Now let's consider just {su'o da na broda}. The obvious prenex
> rewriting, if we hadn't read of any special rule, is:
>

That last sentence sets up an interesting straw man — First, it uses a
word, "obvious". Obvious to whom? To those who expect na to behave the
same as naku? And why should that be true? "It's obvious, if I had never
encountered a platypus or echidna, that all mammals are placental"

No generic statements about obviousness can be made with regard to lojban,
especially if one encounters na as their first negation. Which, if you read
the CLL through as your first exposure to lojban, as I did, is in fact what
happens. The "naku" comes a whole chapter later. And how is it first
encountered? By saying that a bridi that includes a na can be rewritten as
a prenex with "naku" all the way on the left, and then proceeds to explain
how to move it around etc. So to me, the use of "na" as described in CLL is
natural, and the way want to rewrite it is unnatural.

>
> su'o da zo'u na ku zo'u da broda
> "There is some x which is not broda."
>
> na ku ro da zo'u da broda
> "Not every x is broda."
>
> which pretty much would agree with the case with "gi'e".
>
> But for some inexplicable reason, the official rule is that in this
> case "na" jumps over "su'o" without changing it, and "su'o da na
> broda" has to be read as "no x is a broda". The special scope rule
> for "na" is not applicable in general, so why have it at all? Just to
> make things complicated?

So it's not that the na "jumps the su'o". It's that na is defined that
way, and naku is a special subcase of na that works quite differently.
I'd've personally been a lot happier if they had created an entirely
different cmavo for "naku" rather than modifying na in a way that is
counterintuitive to the way it normally works (or the way things like
tense+KU works, for example). If they had a completely different cmavo, I
doubt we'd be having this argument.

--gejyspa

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Now let's consider just {su'o da na broda}. The obvious prenex
>> rewriting, if we hadn't read of any special rule, is:
>
> That last sentence sets up an interesting straw man — First, it uses a
> word, "obvious". Obvious to whom? To those who expect na to behave the
> same as naku?

No, I mean obvious from looking at the parse tree, without
preconceptions. Syntactically {na} is part of the bridi tail, and it
is not, in general, the operator of the bridi-tail with widest scope.
So in general the scope of {na} is already conditioned by the other
operators in the bridi-tail and cannot be changed. Only in the very
special case when {na} has widest scope over the bridi-tail can the
issue even arise of giving it even wider scope than just its natural
scope over the bridi-tail. And no justiication is ever given for that
move.

> No generic statements about obviousness can be made with regard to lojban,
> especially if one encounters na as their first negation. Which, if you read
> the CLL through as your first exposure to lojban, as I did, is in fact what
> happens. The "naku" comes a whole chapter later. And how is it first
> encountered? By saying that a bridi that includes a na can be rewritten as
> a prenex with "naku" all the way on the left, and then proceeds to explain
> how to move it around etc. So to me, the use of "na" as described in CLL is
> natural, and the way want to rewrite it is unnatural.

Yes, I understand that. That's how CLL presents it. But without that
arbitrary rule, which may seem natural to you because it's how {na}
was introduced to you, there is nothing natural about it. The other
interpretation is what follows naturally when no violence is done to
the formal grammar.

> So it's not that the na "jumps the su'o". It's that na is defined that
> way, and naku is a special subcase of na that works quite differently.

{naku} is not relevant to the issue. Fortunately there is no
disagrement about the scope of {naku} which agrees with what can be
read from the parse tree and thus can't cause problems.

> I'd've personally been a lot happier if they had created an entirely
> different cmavo for "naku" rather than modifying na in a way that is
> counterintuitive to the way it normally works (or the way things like
> tense+KU works, for example). If they had a completely different cmavo, I
> doubt we'd be having this argument.

I don't think you are adressing the argument I'm giving, which has
nothing to do with {naku}.

Compare:

(1) su'o da na broda

(2) su'o da ge na broda gi na brode

There's no {naku} in sight. (2) cannot mean anything other than "some
x is neither broda nor brode". It is unnatural for (1) comparing it
with (2), to mean something other than "some x is not broda".

Even better, compare (1) with:

(3) su'o da ge na broda gi na broda

This can only mean "some x is not broda and is not broda", which
reduces to "some x is not broda".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Now let's consider just {su'o da na broda}. The obvious prenex
> >> rewriting, if we hadn't read of any special rule, is:
> >
> > That last sentence sets up an interesting straw man — First, it uses a
> > word, "obvious". Obvious to whom? To those who expect na to behave the
> > same as naku?
>
> No, I mean obvious from looking at the parse tree, without
> preconceptions. Syntactically {na} is part of the bridi tail, and it
> is not, in general, the operator of the bridi-tail with widest scope.
> So in general the scope of {na} is already conditioned by the other
> operators in the bridi-tail and cannot be changed. Only in the very
> special case when {na} has widest scope over the bridi-tail can the
> issue even arise of giving it even wider scope than just its natural
> scope over the bridi-tail. And no justiication is ever given for that
> move.

This is a very interesting argument. I've never considered trying to
glean meaning from how something parses, and I doubt that anyone can. Can
you tell me how "smaji" differs from "ganra" by how they parse? The best
you can do is tell me that they are both three-argument gismu. "Na" is
forced by the grammar to be right before a selbri (or connective. Any other
legal places, disregarding UI and the like? I'm not sure). But how you can
jump from syntax to meaning is beyond me. I wish it could be free when
attached to ku, as PU is, without affecting its meaning, but it's not. Why
they made the choice they did to not let it, is beyond me. But that fact
then remains, since they didn't, that shouldn't necessarily mean that it can
only affect those things to its right. It's kind of like the claims that
since the male pronoun in Hebrew is used for refering to God, God must have
a gender, and it must be male. Um, no. It's just the constraints of the
language force each noun to be either male or female, and a choice was made
(you could argue the case it was made for patriarchal reasons, and so forth,
but that's not the point here).

>
> > I'd've personally been a lot happier if they had created an entirely
> > different cmavo for "naku" rather than modifying na in a way that is
> > counterintuitive to the way it normally works (or the way things like
> > tense+KU works, for example). If they had a completely different cmavo,
> I
> > doubt we'd be having this argument.
>
> I don't think you are adressing the argument I'm giving, which has
> nothing to do with {naku}.
>

But it certainly does. You are suggesting that na perform exactly the
same way that naku does. In other words, two constructions that are
identical. Then why do we need both? Therefore, it must be the case that
"na" doesn't behave the same way as "naku". If "naku" had been called
"xo'o", that would leave "na" to have the function it has, scoping over the
entire bridi (or bridi-tail) (or, possibly more to your satisfaction, not
exist at all). I absolutely agree with you that na's interactions with
qualifier+gi'e constructions need to be specifically laid out.

>
> Compare:
>
> (1) su'o da na broda
>
> (2) su'o da ge na broda gi na brode
>
> There's no {naku} in sight. (2) cannot mean anything other than "some
> x is neither broda nor brode".

Agree

> It is unnatural for (1) comparing it
> with (2), to mean something other than "some x is not broda".
>

And here we disagree. I see "na" and say to myself. "this negates the
entire tail as it exists without it, so this means "it is not true that
there is something that is a broda" If I saw naku, that would be different.

>
> Even better, compare (1) with:
>
> (3) su'o da ge na broda gi na broda
>
> This can only mean "some x is not broda and is not broda", which
> reduces to "some x is not broda".
>

Cute, but that doesn't mean that you can then translate it back as "su'o
da na broda". I know you want it to in the name of consistency, as you
could do if they were all naku. There is no hard and fast transforms for
arbitrary logical constructs, any more than, while it is true that "ko'a ge
du su'ore broda gi du su'oci broda" can be transformed into the true
sentence "ko'a du su'oci broda". (Well, actually, there is, using
deMorgan's laws, etc. which give different results (because they are
differnt procedures/rules) with na than with naku. That's why I keep saying
if "na" and "naku" had unrelated names, you probably wouldn't be bringing
this up.)

Dang!! I said I didn't wish to be sucked back into this discussion that
we already agreed to disagree on, and there we are again, with a wider
audience than last time

--gejyspa

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This is a very interesting argument. I've never considered trying to
> glean meaning from how something parses, and I doubt that anyone can.

You can tell many things from the parse tree. For example, the grammar
is explicitly constructed so that {ko'a .e ko'e .a ko'i} will parse as
{(ko'a .e ko'e) .a ko'i} and {ko'a .e ko'e .a bo ko'i} will parse as
{ko'a .e (ko'e .a bo ko'i)}. There was no need to do it that way. In
fact, the grammar would be simpler, fewer rules, if it didn't care
about getting such groupings right.

> Can
> you tell me how "smaji" differs from "ganra" by how they parse?

No, the formal grammar will only tell you that they are both of
"selma'o" BRIVLA. (In fact it will also recognize they are both gismu,
but that's morphology.) The syntax won't tell you anything about the
meaning, which comes from the dictionary. The syntax won't distinguish
between the meanings of {na} and {ja'a} either, they are just members
of NA. But it can inform you about their scope.

> The best
> you can do is tell me that they are both three-argument gismu.

Not even that. The number of arguments is the same for all BRIVLA as
far as the grammar is concerned: every brivla accepts an infinite (or
indefinite) number of arguments.

> "Na" is
> forced by the grammar to be right before a selbri (or connective. Any other
> legal places, disregarding UI and the like? I'm not sure).

Strictly, it is part of the selbri, and it can alternate with tags, so
for example you can have {ba na bai ja'a ro roi ja'a na ja'a ja'a na
na vi broda} as one selbri.

> But how you can
> jump from syntax to meaning is beyond me.

The parse tree can be helpful to determine groupings and scopes. Of
course you can always define things so the meaning goes against what
the syntax suggests, but why do that?

> I wish it could be free when
> attached to ku, as PU is, without affecting its meaning, but it's not. Why
> they made the choice they did to not let it, is beyond me.

Because if {naku} always had scope over every other operator, there
would be no way of saying such simple things as "some x are not
broda".

>> (1) su'o da na broda
>>
>> (3) su'o da ge na broda gi na broda
>>
>> This can only mean "some x is not broda and is not broda", which
>> reduces to "some x is not broda".
>
> Cute, but that doesn't mean that you can then translate it back as "su'o
> da na broda".

Right. That's the problem.

> There is no hard and fast transforms for
> arbitrary logical constructs,

Sure there are. Except for the crazy {na} rule, everything else (I
mean everything that has a direct correlate in predicate logic)
behaves according to relatively simple rules.

> any more than, while it is true that "ko'a ge
> du su'ore broda gi du su'oci broda" can be transformed into the true
> sentence "ko'a du su'oci broda".

{su'ore} and {su'oci} are not basic predicate logic operators,
although they are easy to define in terms of {su'o} only. (And yes,
that transformation happens to be valid.)

> Dang!! I said I didn't wish to be sucked back into this discussion that
> we already agreed to disagree on, and there we are again, with a wider
> audience than last time

There are things that are a matter of opinion or aesthetics, and it is
perfectly reasonable to disagree about that. For example, I can think
that {su'o da na broda gi'e na broda} and {su'o da na broda} having
different meanings sucks, and you can think it's perfectly fine. Or,
you can think that yes, it sucks, but we're stuck with it and there's
nothing to do about it because CLL is written as it is written and we
better not change it. We can agree to disagree about all that. But
sometimes you seem to challenge not my sense of aesthetics, or my
attitude towards some official rule, but some basic rules of logic.
You can't really maintain that "There is no hard and fast transforms
for arbitrary logical constructs". The whole point of logic is to have
hard and fast transforms for arbitrary logical constructs, so that we
can determine whether some line of logical reasoning is valid
independently of the semantic content of the predicates involved.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> > Can
> > you tell me how "smaji" differs from "ganra" by how they parse?
>
>
> > The best
> > you can do is tell me that they are both three-argument gismu.
>
> Not even that. The number of arguments is the same for all BRIVLA as
> far as the grammar is concerned: every brivla accepts an infinite (or
> indefinite) number of arguments.
>

Yeah, I knew that when I wrote it. I was being a bit sloppy here.

>
>
> > I wish it could be free when
> > attached to ku, as PU is, without affecting its meaning, but it's not.
> Why
> > they made the choice they did to not let it, is beyond me.
>
> Because if {naku} always had scope over every other operator, there
> would be no way of saying such simple things as "some x are not
> broda".

Agreed, without a different operator (that we currently call "naku").
Hence my harping on the whole "it should have been called something else"
point.
\

>
>
> > any more than, while it is true that "ko'a ge
> > du su'ore broda gi du su'oci broda" can be transformed into the true
> > sentence "ko'a du su'oci broda".
>
> {su'ore} and {su'oci} are not basic predicate logic operators,
> although they are easy to define in terms of {su'o} only. (And yes,
> that transformation happens to be valid.)
>

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were logic operators.

>
> . But
> sometimes you seem to challenge not my sense of aesthetics, or my
> attitude towards some official rule, but some basic rules of logic.
> You can't really maintain that "There is no hard and fast transforms
> for arbitrary logical constructs". The whole point of logic is to have
> hard and fast transforms for arbitrary logical constructs, so that we
> can determine whether some line of logical reasoning is valid
> independently of the semantic content of the predicates involved.
>

Well, of course I immediately retracted that in my next sentence with
"Well, actually, there are..." And there is for "na", too. Like the first
transform of transforming it (if it's in a selbri) to "naku" at the start of
a prenex. Essentially, one extra step. But, again, yes, it's very messy
with bridi tails. Is "su'oda na broda gi'e brode" the same as "naku su'oda
broda gi'e brode"? (I think yes. Otherwise you should say "su'oda broda
nagi'e brode") Heck, is "su'oda naku broda gi'e brode" the same as "su'oda
ge naku broda gi brode" or "su'oda nage broda gi brode"? By the same
reasoning as my last parenthetical, I think it's the former. But it
certainly a potential source of confusion.

--gejyspa

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And there is for "na", too. Like the first
> transform of transforming it (if it's in a selbri) to "naku" at the start of
> a prenex.

Except when it isn't. When {na} is in a selbri, it can't always be
moved to the start of a prenex. That's the problem with the special
na-rule, it's complicated and ill defined.

> Essentially, one extra step. But, again, yes, it's very messy
> with bridi tails. Is "su'oda na broda gi'e brode" the same as "naku su'oda
> broda gi'e brode"? (I think yes.

Without the special na-rule it would be obvious that it is not. With
the na-rule in place, who knows? CLL doesn't mention that case. Who do
we ask?

> Otherwise you should say "su'oda broda
> nagi'e brode")

Do we know for sure how na works there? Without the special na-rule,
it would be obvious. With the na-rule in place, who knows?

For me it is obvious that the Right Thing is

su'o da (na broda) gi'e (brode)
= su'o da (broda) na gi'e (brode)
= su'o da ga (na broda) gi'e (brode)
= su'o da ga nai (broda) gi'e (brode)

But with the special na-rule in place, who knows for sure?

> Heck, is "su'oda naku broda gi'e brode" the same as "su'oda
> ge naku broda gi brode" or "su'oda nage broda gi brode"?

It is "su'o da naku ge broda gi broda". Nobody should have any doubt
about that one. {naku} is a shared term for broda and brode.

As for "su'oda nage broda gi brode", with the special na-rule in
place, who knows?

> By the same
> reasoning as my last parenthetical, I think it's the former. But it
> certainly a potential source of confusion.

The special na-rule is the source of confusion. That's my point.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > And there is for "na", too. Like the first
> > transform of transforming it (if it's in a selbri) to "naku" at the start
> of
> > a prenex.
>
> Except when it isn't. When {na} is in a selbri, it can't always be
> moved to the start of a prenex.

Please explain/show counterexample?

> That's the problem with the special
> na-rule, it's complicated and ill defined.
>
> > Essentially, one extra step. But, again, yes, it's very messy
> > with bridi tails. Is "su'oda na broda gi'e brode" the same as "naku
> su'oda
> > broda gi'e brode"? (I think yes.
>
> Without the special na-rule it would be obvious that it is not. With
> the na-rule in place, who knows? CLL doesn't mention that case. Who do
> we ask?

The BPFK, no? Isn't that part of your job description to define ill-defined
areas (rather than rewriting already-defined areas?)

>
>
> > Otherwise you should say "su'oda broda
> > nagi'e brode")
>
> Do we know for sure how na works there? Without the special na-rule,
> it would be obvious. With the na-rule in place, who knows?
>
> For me it is obvious that the Right Thing is
>
> su'o da (na broda) gi'e (brode)
> = su'o da (broda) na gi'e (brode)
> = su'o da ga (na broda) gi'e (brode)
> = su'o da ga nai (broda) gi'e (brode)

(I think you meant gi, not gi'e, in the last two??)

> But with the special na-rule in place, who knows for sure?
>
> > Heck, is "su'oda naku broda gi'e brode" the same as "su'oda
> > ge naku broda gi brode" or "su'oda nage broda gi brode"?
>
> It is "su'o da naku ge broda gi broda". Nobody should have any doubt
> about that one. {naku} is a shared term for broda and brode.

Is it? So how would you negate just the first part (there is someone who
is not a broda, but is a brode) using naku and gi'e? Are you saying it's
not possible? It seems to me that with, just as with ge...gi... you can
negate either half, both or neither, you should be able to do the same with
gi'e.

--gejyspa

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > And there is for "na", too. Like the first
>> > transform of transforming it (if it's in a selbri) to "naku" at the
>> > start of a prenex.
>>
>> Except when it isn't. When {na} is in a selbri, it can't always be
>> moved to the start of a prenex.
>
> Please explain/show counterexample?

For example the one we have been discusing {su'o da na broda gi'e brode}.

>> With the na-rule in place, who knows? CLL doesn't mention that case. Who do
>> we ask?
>
> The BPFK, no? Isn't that part of your job description to define ill-defined
> areas (rather than rewriting already-defined areas?)

Right. An unfortunate situation given the BPFK's response time.

>> For me it is obvious that the Right Thing is
>>
>> su'o da (na broda) gi'e (brode)
>> = su'o da (broda) na gi'e (brode)
>> = su'o da ga (na broda) gi'e (brode)
>> = su'o da ga nai (broda) gi'e (brode)
>
> (I think you meant gi, not gi'e, in the last two??)

Yes.

>> > Heck, is "su'oda naku broda gi'e brode" the same as "su'oda
>> > ge naku broda gi brode" or "su'oda nage broda gi brode"?
>>
>> It is "su'o da naku ge broda gi broda". Nobody should have any doubt
>> about that one. {naku} is a shared term for broda and brode.
>
> Is it? So how would you negate just the first part (there is someone who
> is not a broda, but is a brode) using naku and gi'e?

"su'o da broda naku gi'e brode"

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Friday 19 December 2008 14:15:27 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Michael Turniansky
>
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And there is for "na", too. Like the first
> > transform of transforming it (if it's in a selbri) to "naku" at the start
> > of a prenex.
>
> Except when it isn't. When {na} is in a selbri, it can't always be
> moved to the start of a prenex. That's the problem with the special
> na-rule, it's complicated and ill defined.

How's this for a definition of the na-rule?:
1. Convert all conjunctions that connect two clauses (ijek) or bridi-tails
(gihek) to forethought.
2. Move {na} which is not part of a conjunction as far as possible toward the
beginning of the sentence without jumping over a conjunction that connects
two clauses or bridi-tails, and replace it with {naku}.
e.g. su'oda na broda gi'e brode
->su'oda ge na broda gi brode
->su'oda ge naku broda gi brode

su'oda nage broda gi brode
doesn't change, because {na} is part of the conjunction {nage}.

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

>
> How's this for a definition of the na-rule?:
> 1. Convert all conjunctions that connect two clauses (ijek) or bridi-tails
> (gihek) to forethought.
> 2. Move {na} which is not part of a conjunction as far as possible toward the
> beginning of the sentence without jumping over a conjunction that connects
> two clauses or bridi-tails, and replace it with {naku}.
> e.g. su'oda na broda gi'e brode
> ->su'oda ge na broda gi brode
> ->su'oda ge naku broda gi brode

It looks unambiguous, as far as I can tell. Of course it does maintain
the unintuitive relationship between {su'o da na broda gi'e brode} and
{su'o da na broda}.

> su'oda nage broda gi brode
> doesn't change, because {na} is part of the conjunction {nage}.

{na} is not really part of the conjunction. Do you mean it is
equivalent to: {su'o da na ku zo'u ge da broda gi da brode} or to {na
ku su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode}?

A full specification of the rules would go something like this:

We define an "atomic bridi" as a bridi that contains no bridi
negations, no (outer) quantifiers, and no (logical) connectives. It
corresponds to an atomic formula of pedicate logic. (In an atomic
bridi, the order of arguments can be changed freely with SE and/or FA,
without changing meaning).

We define a "well formed bridi" (wfb), corresponding to well formed
formulas of predicate logic, as follows:

An atomic bridi is a wfb.
A wfb preceded by {na ku zo'u} is a wfb.
A wfb preceded by {ro da zo'u} is a wfb. (And the same for the other
quantifiers.)
Two wfb connected with {ge .. gi ...} give a wfb. (And the same for
the other logical connectives.)
Nothing else is a wfb.

That is all that is required to express the wff's of first-order
predicate logic, and the logical structure of a wfb is always clear.
But Lojban provides some additional "shortcut" notations (negations
and quantifiers moved out of the prenex and into the matrix of the
bridi, and sumti and bridi-tail connectives) that are always
equivalent to some wfb. The rules to transform a general bridi into
wfb form are as follows:

Step 1: write all afterthought connectives in forethought form.
Step 2: going from left to right:
(a) when a naku is found in the matrix, move to last place in the
prenex of current bridi.
(b) when a quantifier is found in the matrix, move to last place in
the prenex of current bridi, leaving a copy of the variable in place
in the matrix.
(c) when a connective is found, expand to a full bridi connective,
leaving a copies of the shared terms in each connected bridi (this may
require introducing some goi ko'a or similar when the shared term is
not already a variable.)
(d1) when a na is found, move (as naku) to last place in the prenex of
current bridi.
(d2) when a na is found, move (as naku) to first place in the prenex
of current bridi.

Rule (d1) is what I propose, rule (d2) is what you propose.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Michael Turniansky
>
>
> >> > Heck, is "su'oda naku broda gi'e brode" the same as "su'oda
> >> > ge naku broda gi brode" or "su'oda nage broda gi brode"?
> >>
> >> It is "su'o da naku ge broda gi broda". Nobody should have any doubt
> >> about that one. {naku} is a shared term for broda and brode.
> >
> > Is it? So how would you negate just the first part (there is someone
> who
> > is not a broda, but is a brode) using naku and gi'e?
>
> "su'o da broda naku gi'e brode"
>
>
I'm a bit confused about this. Under your rules (naku negates everything
(and only things) to its right), doesn't that mean "X is broda and/or not
brode"?

I hope we get this all straigthened out before I tell you "su'o lo
regerku poi pu batci do na bilma fi loi vidrnreibi". It might make a
difference....

--gejyspa

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > So how would you negate just the first part (there is someone
>> > who is not a broda, but is a brode) using naku and gi'e?
>>
>> "su'o da broda naku gi'e brode"
>
> I'm a bit confused about this. Under your rules (naku negates everything
> (and only things) to its right), doesn't that mean "X is broda and/or not
> brode"?

{naku} cannot negate *everything* to its right, only subordinate
structures. "gi'e" is above naku (and in fact when you write it in
forethought form it becomes clear that it is superordinate and to the
left of naku: "su'o da (broda naku) gi'e (brode)" = "su'o da ge (broda
naku) gi (brode)".

> I hope we get this all straigthened out before I tell you "su'o lo
> regerku poi pu batci do na bilma fi loi vidrnreibi". It might make a
> difference....

If you don't want to confuse your audience, you are better avoiding
na+selbri in the presence of preceding quantifiers, and just use: "no
lo re gerku poi pu batci do cu bilma fi loi vidrnreibi" or "me'i lo re
gerku poi pu batci do cu bilma fi loi vidrnreibi".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Sunday 21 December 2008 13:53:53 Jorge Llambías wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

> > su'oda nage broda gi brode
> > doesn't change, because {na} is part of the conjunction {nage}.
>
> {na} is not really part of the conjunction. Do you mean it is
> equivalent to: {su'o da na ku zo'u ge da broda gi da brode} or to {na
> ku su'o da zo'u ge da broda gi da brode}?

{naku su'oda zo'u ge da broda gi da brode}. I was thinking of {ganai}; in
{naje}, {na} is part of the conjunction, whereas in {nage}, it isn't.

> A full specification of the rules would go something like this:
>
> We define an "atomic bridi" as a bridi that contains no bridi
> negations, no (outer) quantifiers, and no (logical) connectives. It
> corresponds to an atomic formula of pedicate logic. (In an atomic
> bridi, the order of arguments can be changed freely with SE and/or FA,
> without changing meaning).

It can contain bridi negations inside a sumti; these aren't affected by the
transform, unless you apply it to the bridi inside the sumti. e.g. {lo na
gerku cu batci mi}.

> We define a "well formed bridi" (wfb), corresponding to well formed
> formulas of predicate logic, as follows:
>
> An atomic bridi is a wfb.
> A wfb preceded by {na ku zo'u} is a wfb.
> A wfb preceded by {ro da zo'u} is a wfb. (And the same for the other
> quantifiers.)
> Two wfb connected with {ge .. gi ...} give a wfb. (And the same for
> the other logical connectives.)
> Nothing else is a wfb.
>
> That is all that is required to express the wff's of first-order
> predicate logic, and the logical structure of a wfb is always clear.
> But Lojban provides some additional "shortcut" notations (negations
> and quantifiers moved out of the prenex and into the matrix of the
> bridi, and sumti and bridi-tail connectives) that are always
> equivalent to some wfb. The rules to transform a general bridi into
> wfb form are as follows:
>
> Step 1: write all afterthought connectives in forethought form.
> Step 2: going from left to right:
> (a) when a naku is found in the matrix, move to last place in the
> prenex of current bridi.
> (b) when a quantifier is found in the matrix, move to last place in
> the prenex of current bridi, leaving a copy of the variable in place
> in the matrix.
> (c) when a connective is found, expand to a full bridi connective,
> leaving a copies of the shared terms in each connected bridi (this may
> require introducing some goi ko'a or similar when the shared term is
> not already a variable.)
> (d1) when a na is found, move (as naku) to last place in the prenex of
> current bridi.
> (d2) when a na is found, move (as naku) to first place in the prenex
> of current bridi.
>
> Rule (d1) is what I propose, rule (d2) is what you propose.

In {su'oda na broda gi'e brode}, you have to convert {gi'e} to forethought
before moving {na}, else it won't find a {ge} to stop it.

This transform also applies to non-logical connectives, although the result
won't be a logical wfb. E.g.:
ti na gucti li re joi pulgada li so
-> ti joigi na gucti li re gi pulgada li so
-> ti joigi naku gucti li re gi pulgada li so

mu'omi'e pier.

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

> On Sunday 21 December 2008 13:53:53 Jorge Llambías wrote:
>
>> A full specification of the rules would go something like this:
>>
>> We define an "atomic bridi" as a bridi that contains no bridi
>> negations, no (outer) quantifiers, and no (logical) connectives. It
>> corresponds to an atomic formula of pedicate logic. (In an atomic
>> bridi, the order of arguments can be changed freely with SE and/or FA,
>> without changing meaning).
>
> It can contain bridi negations inside a sumti; these aren't affected by the
> transform, unless you apply it to the bridi inside the sumti. e.g. {lo na
> gerku cu batci mi}.

Yes, you are right, and the same goes for quantifiers and logical
connectives, say inside a nu abstraction, or inside a relative clause.
Those are not really handled at all by basic vanilla first-order
predicate logic. We are only concerned here with bridi negation,
(outer) quantifiers and (logical) connectives at the main bridi level.

>> The rules to transform a general bridi into
>> wfb form are as follows:
>>
>> Step 1: write all afterthought connectives in forethought form.
...

> In {su'oda na broda gi'e brode}, you have to convert {gi'e} to forethought
> before moving {na}, else it won't find a {ge} to stop it.

Correct, that's what the "Step 1" is for. (One can ignore Step 1 if
one is comfortable in determining the scope of afterthought
connectives, which is not always so obvious as in the forethought
form.)

> This transform also applies to non-logical connectives, although the result
> won't be a logical wfb. E.g.:
> ti na gucti li re joi pulgada li so

That's not grammatical. Do you mean "ti na gucti be li re joi pulgada be li so"?

> -> ti joigi na gucti li re gi pulgada li so
> -> ti joigi naku gucti li re gi pulgada li so

I would agree those two are equivalent, although who knows what they
mean. Non-logical connectives applied to sumti correspond to binary
functions in FOPL (except for "fa'u"), but non-logical connectives
applied to anything other than sumti are something of a mystery. I
don't think they are equivalent to anything in first order predicate
logic.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > So how would you negate just the first part (there is someone
> >> > who is not a broda, but is a brode) using naku and gi'e?
> >>
> >> "su'o da broda naku gi'e brode"
> >
> > I'm a bit confused about this. Under your rules (naku negates
> everything
> > (and only things) to its right), doesn't that mean "X is broda and/or not
> > brode"?
>
> {naku} cannot negate *everything* to its right, only subordinate
> structures. "gi'e" is above naku (and in fact when you write it in
> forethought form it becomes clear that it is superordinate and to the
> left of naku: "su'o da (broda naku) gi'e (brode)" = "su'o da ge (broda
> naku) gi (brode)".
>

Okay, so now I'm getting further and further confused about your rule. I
thought I understood it, based on your claim that it was straightforward and
easy to apply. Now naku is working (scoping) backward (leftward)? And yet,
if you have it before the broda, you say that it applies to both broda and
brode? I'm sorry, xorxes, but I really can't use a rule where I have to
submit every utterance to you first to decide how what it means to you. It
really seems to be working in arbitrary ways. This might be my own
densitude, but the rules in the CLL seem very straightforward, and yours
really don't. YMMV

> > I hope we get this all straigthened out before I tell you "su'o lo
> > regerku poi pu batci do na bilma fi loi vidrnreibi". It might make a
> > difference....
>
> If you don't want to confuse your audience, you are better avoiding
> na+selbri in the presence of preceding quantifiers, and just use: "no
> lo re gerku poi pu batci do cu bilma fi loi vidrnreibi" or "me'i lo re
> gerku poi pu batci do cu bilma fi loi vidrnreibi".

Wouldn't bother me at all. This whole thread started with my
assertion that "na's meaning in very complicated sentence with both
existential qualifiers and bridi tails is not well-defined." And your
counter assertion " If {su'o da na broda gi'e brode} counts as a 'very
complicated sentence', then the characterization of Lojban as 'spoken
predicate logic' is almost a sham. The relative scopes of quantifiers,
logical connectives and negation should be very straightforward." It seems
that you are now agreeing with me that in order for communication to take
place, both the speaker and audience must agree on how to interpret
utterances and that the types of sentences under discussion are not
well-defined. Of course, other than our two voices, we've only heard from
Pierre (And by proxy, J Cowan in CLL?)). It seems to me I'd have an easier
(read:less-confusing) time communicating with the latter two in lojban than
with you.

Let me be absolutely, absolutely clear, and I've said this many times
before, but it bears repeating, especially when my tenor seems harsh: I
respect you, xorxes, I really do. You are both an undisputed jbocre, and
always willing to reach out to lojbanists of all levels in helping to expand
understanding of the language. lo du'u mi se raktu so'i lo se xusra be do
kei na jdikygau mi lo ka sinma do

--gejyspa

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> "su'o da broda naku gi'e brode"
>
> Okay, so now I'm getting further and further confused about your rule.

That's not "my" rule. The rules for "naku" are, as far as I know, not
in the least controversial. The only rule about which there is
disagreement is na+selbri, and that one does not appear in the above
example.

> I
> thought I understood it, based on your claim that it was straightforward and
> easy to apply. Now naku is working (scoping) backward (leftward)?

There is no other operator there for naku to have scope over. It is
the last operator in its bridi.

> And yet,
> if you have it before the broda, you say that it applies to both broda and
> brode?

It's not me who says that. That's the standard, official
interpretation. The terms in front of connected bridi-tails are common
terms.

> I'm sorry, xorxes, but I really can't use a rule where I have to
> submit every utterance to you first to decide how what it means to you.

Do you understand the grammar of {gi'e}? It's as folows:

shared-terms (first-selbri terms-of-first-selbri) gi'e (second-selbri
terms-of-second-selbri)

Notice that there is no room before the first selbri for a non-shared
{naku} term.

> It
> really seems to be working in arbitrary ways.

It is not arbitrary. And in any case, I emphasize that it is not *my*
rule. It's the official rule.

> This might be my own
> densitude, but the rules in the CLL seem very straightforward, and yours
> really don't. YMMV

But you don't seem to be applying the CLL rules correctly in this case.

> This whole thread started with my
> assertion that "na's meaning in very complicated sentence with both
> existential qualifiers and bridi tails is not well-defined." And your
> counter assertion " If {su'o da na broda gi'e brode} counts as a 'very
> complicated sentence', then the characterization of Lojban as 'spoken
> predicate logic' is almost a sham. The relative scopes of quantifiers,
> logical connectives and negation should be very straightforward."

Exactly.

> It seems
> that you are now agreeing with me that in order for communication to take
> place, both the speaker and audience must agree on how to interpret
> utterances and that the types of sentences under discussion are not
> well-defined.

That's why the characterization is a bit of a sham, when the rule for
na in such a simple sentence is so ill defined. (But the rules for
naku are perfectly well defined.)

> Of course, other than our two voices, we've only heard from
> Pierre (And by proxy, J Cowan in CLL?)). It seems to me I'd have an easier
> (read:less-confusing) time communicating with the latter two in lojban than
> with you.

Maybe.

> Let me be absolutely, absolutely clear, and I've said this many times
> before, but it bears repeating, especially when my tenor seems harsh: I
> respect you, xorxes, I really do. You are both an undisputed jbocre, and
> always willing to reach out to lojbanists of all levels in helping to expand
> understanding of the language. lo du'u mi se raktu so'i lo se xusra be do
> kei na jdikygau mi lo ka sinma do

Thanks, but really, I enjoy these exchanges. I don't think
disagreement equals disrespect. (Fake agreement would be
disrespectful, honest disagreement is prefectly respectful.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Monday 22 December 2008 10:08:42 Jorge Llambías wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

> > This transform also applies to non-logical connectives, although the
> > result won't be a logical wfb. E.g.:
> > ti na gucti li re joi pulgada li so
>
> That's not grammatical. Do you mean "ti na gucti be li re joi pulgada be li
> so"?

According to jbofi'e, that's not grammatical either. I'm trying to join the
bridi-tails. Is there a way to do that in afterthought?

> > -> ti joigi na gucti li re gi pulgada li so
> > -> ti joigi naku gucti li re gi pulgada li so
>
> I would agree those two are equivalent, although who knows what they
> mean. Non-logical connectives applied to sumti correspond to binary
> functions in FOPL (except for "fa'u"), but non-logical connectives
> applied to anything other than sumti are something of a mystery. I
> don't think they are equivalent to anything in first order predicate
> logic.

One possible interpretation is "It measures nine inches, or one foot and nine
inches, or three feet and nine inches, or so on, but not two feet and nine
inches." But it could also measure a meter and nine inches, or a gram and
nine inches (as long as the gram isn't two feet long).

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

> On Monday 22 December 2008 10:08:42 Jorge Llambías wrote:

> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>

> wrote:
> > > This transform also applies to non-logical connectives, although the
> > > result won't be a logical wfb. E.g.:
> > > ti na gucti li re joi pulgada li so
> >
> > That's not grammatical. Do you mean "ti na gucti be li re joi pulgada be
> li
> > so"?
>
> According to jbofi'e, that's not grammatical either. I'm trying to join the
> bridi-tails. Is there a way to do that in afterthought?

According to CLL 14.20, there is no afterthought non-logical bridi-tail
connector

--gejyspa

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

> On Monday 22 December 2008 10:08:42 Jorge Llambías wrote:
>>
>> Do you mean "ti na gucti be li re joi pulgada be li so"?
>
> According to jbofi'e, that's not grammatical either.

jbofi'e doesn't always handle elidable terminators well. How does it
do with "ti na gucti be li re be'o joi pulgada be li so"?

> I'm trying to join the
> bridi-tails. Is there a way to do that in afterthought?

No, not with non-logical connectives. I once proposed adding "GI JOI"
as the afterthought bridi-tail connective for non-logicals, but it was
never approved.

>> > -> ti joigi na gucti li re gi pulgada li so
>> > -> ti joigi naku gucti li re gi pulgada li so
>>
>> I would agree those two are equivalent, although who knows what they
>> mean.
>
> One possible interpretation is "It measures nine inches, or one foot and nine
> inches, or three feet and nine inches, or so on, but not two feet and nine
> inches." But it could also measure a meter and nine inches, or a gram and
> nine inches (as long as the gram isn't two feet long).

Not at all clear to me. Before trying to figure that one out, I'd like
to know what {ti joi gi broda gi brode} means, if anything.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> "su'o da broda naku gi'e brode"
> >
> > Okay, so now I'm getting further and further confused about your rule.
>
> That's not "my" rule. The rules for "naku" are, as far as I know, not
> in the least controversial. The only rule about which there is
> disagreement is na+selbri, and that one does not appear in the above
> example.
>
> > I
> > thought I understood it, based on your claim that it was straightforward
> and
> > easy to apply. Now naku is working (scoping) backward (leftward)?
>
> There is no other operator there for naku to have scope over. It is
> the last operator in its bridi.
>

Okay, I agree that ko'a broda naku is the same as ko'a broda (if you move
it leftwards, there is no funky qualifier or connective flipping to do (I've
never seen it at the end of a bridi, but there is no reason why it couldn't
be)).

> > And yet,
> > if you have it before the broda, you say that it applies to both broda
> and
> > brode?
>
> It's not me who says that. That's the standard, official
> interpretation. The terms in front of connected bridi-tails are common
> terms.
>

So if I understand you correctly, since naku is a term, on the same type
of level as, but distinct from, a sumti, it behaves the same as a sumti. It
isn't in any way part of the selbri, whereas na is part of the selbri. Is
my understanding now accurate? Assuming so, what you are then saying is
despite the fact that ko'a na broda and ko'a naku broda are superficially
similar, and (in your way of treating na) in meaning identical, they
grammatically are not the same. Therefore, although when shifting naku
leftward from ko'a broda naku, we can say ko'a naku broda, we can't do the
same when it's part of ko'a broda naku gi'e brode. It seems odd to me in
the same way as your comparison of "su'o da na broda" and "su'o da ge na
broda gi na broda" seemed odd to you (under my interpretation of na), but I
concede that it is indeed so.

Have I now gotten down naku?

(BTW, I like this bit of editorializing in the CLL, which you clearly
don't agree with, indeed feel the opposite to be true:
"Clearly, if all of Lojban negation was built on ``naku'' negation instead
of ``na'' negation, logical manipulation in Lojban would be as difficult as
in natural languages." ;-)

--gejyspa

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Okay, I agree that ko'a broda naku is the same as ko'a broda

(Hopefully that last bit was just a typo for "ko'a naku broda".)

>(if you move
> it leftwards, there is no funky qualifier or connective flipping to do (I've
> never seen it at the end of a bridi, but there is no reason why it couldn't
> be)).

Right. In fact since that sentence has no quantifiers or connectives,
all of these are equivalent:

naku ko'a broda = ko'a naku broda = ko'a broda naku = ko'a na broda =
naku broda fa ko'a = broda naku fa ko'a = broda fa ko'a naku

There is complete freedom to shuffle things around in that particular
case, since the only operator with scope is na/naku.

> So if I understand you correctly, since naku is a term, on the same type
> of level as, but distinct from, a sumti, it behaves the same as a sumti. It
> isn't in any way part of the selbri, whereas na is part of the selbri. Is
> my understanding now accurate?

Sounds like it is, yes.

> Assuming so, what you are then saying is
> despite the fact that ko'a na broda and ko'a naku broda are superficially
> similar, and (in your way of treating na) in meaning identical, they
> grammatically are not the same.

Correct.

> Therefore, although when shifting naku
> leftward from ko'a broda naku, we can say ko'a naku broda, we can't do the
> same when it's part of ko'a broda naku gi'e brode.

Right, the structure is completely different. But that's not anything
particularly special about {naku}. You can always change {ko'a broda
ko'e} to {ko'a ko'e broda}, but you can't change {ko'a broda ko'e
gi'e brode} to {ko'a ko'e broda gi'e brode}, because then you would be
adding "ko'e" as a term to brode that it originally didn't have.

> It seems odd to me in
> the same way as your comparison of "su'o da na broda" and "su'o da ge na
> broda gi na broda" seemed odd to you (under my interpretation of na), but I
> concede that it is indeed so.

The difference is that it is easy to explain why naku cannot be moved
to the "shared area" of the connected bridi: it was not shared between
the two bridi to begin with. It is more difficult to understand why
{na} would stop having scope over the leading terms when the selbri is
connected with some other selbri.

> Have I now gotten down naku?
>
> (BTW, I like this bit of editorializing in the CLL, which you clearly
> don't agree with, indeed feel the opposite to be true:
> "Clearly, if all of Lojban negation was built on ``naku'' negation instead
> of ``na'' negation, logical manipulation in Lojban would be as difficult as
> in natural languages." ;-)

What can I say, the behaviour of {naku} is completely predictable and
what what one would expect from just looking at the syntax, even
before anyone gives any explanations. The behaviour of {na} is not.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Michael Turniansky
> <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Okay, I agree that ko'a broda naku is the same as ko'a broda
>
> (Hopefully that last bit was just a typo for "ko'a naku broda".)
>

go'i .i mi ckire do lo za'i do tcidu fi loi menli

--gejyspa

On Monday 22 December 2008 13:54:25 Michael Turniansky wrote:
>   Okay, I agree that ko'a broda naku is the same as ko'a broda (if you move
> it leftwards, there is no funky qualifier or connective flipping to do
> (I've never seen it at the end of a bridi, but there is no reason why it
> couldn't be)).

As I understood it, {naku} is interpreted, in a bridi with no bridi-tail
connectors, as if the selbri were at the end; i.e. the selbri is always in
the scope of {naku}. So {ko'a broda naku} is equivalent to {ko'a naku broda}.

Pierre

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.