[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] CAI (was: RE: more true (was: ka ka (was: Context Leapers))

In a message dated 10/7/2002 3:42:10 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes:

<<
Some issue came up which was not
obvious how to solve, so lojbab asked pc about it. Then pc
gave lojbab a most likely correct but hard to decipher answer.
Lojbab interpreted, and then John Cowan tried to make whatever
sense could be rescued out of that interpretation. Somewhat
like the Broken Phone game. The results are still pretty
impressive, which shows the high quality of participants
and the Loglan starting point, in spite of the method.

>>
On {na} and negations generally, pc's first shots are in a paper (a report on Horn's Negation) which may well be in the archives somewhere or otherwise retrievable.  In any case, pc went over the final (well, almost -- and I don't think there were any significant changes thereafter) draft of the chapter and gave it at least a nihil obstat.  There may have been issue we didn't think of back then (attaching {cai} to {na}, say -- which, btw, I read as negation with a passionate commitment, not a stronger negation in the sense of being more false).  In particular, the selbri nestling {na} still feels right to me as an English-speaking logician and linguist.  Especially given {naku} for the tricky cases.