Re: na`e

[bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM]

jorge@intermedia.com.a wrote:

   >     lo mlatu ca'o vreta lo stizu
   >       <What is truly a cat is in the continuative of
   >       reclining/resting on what is truly a chair.>

   Yes, perhaps I would prefer "some cat sits on some chair" for
   the English for that.

This is an old argument.  Suffice to say that I think it is practical
in everyday language to distinguish between that which I designate
{le} and that which really is {lo}.

   >  2. It is false that the cat sits on the chair.
   >     lo mlatu na ca'o vreta lo stizu

   Here it does make a difference. The Lojban actually says
   that it is false that some cat sits on some chair, so it only
   agrees with your translation if there is a single cat in your
   universe.

Yes -- but that is what I am saying: there is one cat in my current
universe of discourse.  Again, I see this as a pragmatic convenience
that enables me to distinguish that which really is a cat from the
cat-like sculpture next to her.  When you are speaking careful logic,
which you can also do, you can expand your universe of discourse.

   >  3.  The cat sits otherwise than on the chair.
   >      lo mlatu ca'o na'e vreta lo stizu

   No, na'e negates "vreta", not "lo stizu", ...

You are absolutely right!  I even quoted a statement from
_The Complete Lojban Language_ that should have put me straight.

I would have translate that as:

    That which really is one or more cats other-than-sits with
    respect to that which really is one or more chairs.

You would translate it as:

    Some cat other-than-sits with respect to some chair.

As both you and Don Wiggins pointed out, I should have said

  .i lo mlatu ca'o stizu na'ebo lo stizu

--

    Robert J. Chassell               bob@rattlesnake.com
    25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road     bob@ai.mit.edu
    Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA   (413) 298-4725