WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: brivla Negators changed

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