[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TECH: more thoughts on zi'o
mi'e .djan. .i la .art. protin. cusku di'e
> Though, I don't understand why the most useless and counterintuitive
> rules of precedence were chosen for combining the ellipsis and the
> negation. I would have bound the negation tighter than the
> existential quantifying. For example "not bluer-than" becomes
> "there exist a y such that it is false that x is bluer-than
> y". If this is supposed to be the distinction between "scalar
> negation" and "logical negation", I believe that "scalar negation"
> is much more useful to me. If that is the distinction between
> scalar & logicial negation, I believe that what I can say with
> logical negation is a proper subset of what I can say with scalar.
> If that is not the difference, then I am more comfortable with
> the use of logical negation but still fuzzy about the distinction.
No, it isn't. Both those forms are logical negations, but as you correctly
say, the scope varies. (Ey) ~bluer(a,y) is
ko'a naku blanymau da
It-1 ~not bluer-than some-x
which goes into prenex normal form as:
da naku zo'u ko'a blanymau da
(Ex) ~ : it-1 bluer-than x
whereas the other case is:
ko'a na blanymau da
which becomes
naku da zo'u ko'a blanymau da
~ (Ex) : it-1 bluer-than x
So by varying between "na" (which always negates the whole thing) and "naku"
(which negates only what is following it) you can capture the
anything/everything distinction in English.
But neither of these is scalar negation. Contradictory negation expresses
what is false: "ko'a na blanu" means "it is false that it-1 is blue".
Scalar negation says that something OTHER THAN what is expressed is true:
"ko'a na'e blanu" means "it-1 is other-than-blue/non-blue". Scalar
negations cannot be manipulated logically, and are close-binding.
--
John Cowan sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
e'osai ko sarji la lojban.