Re: negation translation

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la bab. cusku di'e

> John Cowan is proposing a change in the interpretation of {lo} and {da
> poi} with negation.  I do not understand his translations into English.

The nature of a change, any change, is that it may invalidate old texts,
either Lojban ones or English explanations.  Such is the case here.

> According to his `Negation' paper,

lojbab's, actually.

>     ... bridi negation has an internal form which is identical in
>     meaning to the external form expressed by using "naku" in the
>     prenex.  ... internal bridi negation is unlke any similar negation
>     form in natural language. ... Convert the natural language
>     negation to an external negation ... and then proceed. ...
> 
> Thus:
> 
> 6)      lo nanmu na klama le zarci
> 
> is identical to:
> 
>     naku zo'u lo nanmu cu klama le zarci
> 
> The translation for this prenex form is:
> 
>     It is false that:  at least one man goes to the store.
> 
> This strikes me as completely different in meaning from the
> translation John gave for 6):
> 
>         Some men don't go to the store.
> 
> The translation of the prenex form tells me that no men went to the
> store (on the occasion, in the context); the other translation tells
> me that some men might have gone to the store.

My change, as captured in the phrase "'lo' has widest scope", is precisely
in the expansion of Example 6, which now becomes:

	[su'o] da poi nanmu naku zo'u da klama le zarci

which is equivalent to:

	naku ro da poi nanmu zo'u da klama le zarci

which denies that all men go to the store, which is equivalent to affirming
that some men do not go to the store.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.