Talk:BPFK Section: General Negators

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Posted by clsn on Sun 01 of Jan., 2006 20:54 GMT posts: 84

I've brought this up two or three times on previous incarnations of Lojban fora; it should be here as well.

It is my contention that the should be an affirmator in selma'o NAI, just like every other negator has an explicit affirmator (na/ja'a, na'i/jo'a, no/su'o, etc). It is important for emphasizing the lack of "nai". For example, by na.e cy could have its first part changed and emphasized (e.g. someone said by na.e cy and I need to correct him that no, both B and C are involved) with by ja'a.e cy. But you can't do the same with by .enai cy. All you can do is say by .e cy, which doesn't get the right message across. Also good for responding to UInaipei?-type questions, etc. NAI really gets around, and anything it negates ought to be affirmable as well. The na.enai vs. ja'a.e??? example is, I think particularly telling, since it treats the two components of the conjunction differently, allowing an affirmator for one and not the other. (though neither one can be affirmed if we're talking forethought: genai by ginai cy).

The experimental cmavo that I/we have been using for this is ja'ai, which sounds good for the job. I know we're not choosing forms for the cmavo at this point. Just saying.

I think this one is fairly uncontroversial (even if introducing a new cmavo is a big deal). Just wanted it on the table.