WikiDiscuss

A>The contradictory property of {broda}, the proerty has by everything that does not have broda.
B> a. b. is contrary. Note the problem with identifying {x na brode} with {x noku brode} is primarily with x; when x exists (or whatever) the move goes through.

C. a again, b is still contrary. I suppose the third case is something like "it is not the case that for all x and y x broda y," which is what your usage seems to be, if fronte {naku} and prepredicate {naku} are the same — or do you only front in the matrix, not over the prenex (a smart idea, but not CLL, as far as I can find a coherent tale about this there).

D> As far as I can tell, yes.

E> Well, it makes a hash out of moving negation across quantifiers and it loser the distinction between contraries and contradictories. For starters.

F>Then why mess around with Mr Bunny for the last xty x years? (But you really won't like the negation thing or the quantifiers, though I can never see why.)

Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
pc:
> Well, that is never what I meant by {lo broda naku brode}, nor does it seem
> to be what CLL nor common sense would have it mean. The {na'e} doesn't work
> since {na'e} is not contradictory negation but only contrary (well, you can
> change that too, but then you have to get a new contrary and on and on).
A>I don't know what you mean by {naku broda} then.

How do you read:

B> ko'a ko'e naku broda

a) The relationship broda(ko'a, ko'e) does not hold, i.e.
NOT broda(ko'a, ko'e)
b) There is a relationship, other than broda, that holds between
ko'a and ko'e. i.e. non-broda(ko'a, ko'e)

Is there a third possibility that I'm missing?

If you read it as b), then I don't think that's what CLL or common
sense would have it mean. If as a), then you agree with me, but then
the position of {naku} in the sentence is irrelevant.

Or better still, to give an example with what you say are the
only possible constants:

C>roda rode zo'u da de naku broda

Is that:

a) for every x and every y, NOT broda(x,y)
b) for every x and every y, other-than-broda(x,y)
c) something else?

> I never can figure out what I mean by {ta brode naku}; I tend
> to take it as the same as {ta na brode} (i.e. {naku ta cu brode}) when there
> is nothing following it in the sentence and to negate only what follows it if
> there is something there.

D>Then for you {naku lo broda cu brode} = {lo broda cu brode naku}, but
they are both different from {lo broda naku brode}?

> Your way of soing things makes life a lot easier,
> fo course, but it ain't Lojban and it leaves a lot unsaid.

E>I disagree it ain't Lojban. What does it leave unsaid?

> I am hoping to see a similarly throrough (and probably clearer) version of
> this for xorlo (but I have been asking for that for years now).

F>Aside from that point about naku in front of the selbri (and I don't
understand what you mean by it, if not na'e), and the minor point
about the import of quantifiers, everything you present seems to map
to the proposal as far as I can understand.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail