Re: A question and introduction

>From: John Cowan <jcowan@...>
>
>Andy Canivet scripsit:
>
> > When I say something like "I see no-house," it almost implies that there
>is
> > a house shaped hole in the universe, because I see "no-house" and I
>don't
> > see "no-elephant"...
>
>I think you're overinterpreting the nullary number (which in Lojban is done
>with the number zero).  Just take it as "I see zero houses", "I see zero
>elephants".  In German one doesn't say "I don't see an apple", one says
>"I see no apples".
Yes you're right - I had confused a null / zero quantity with a state of
being / non-being...

>the case.  "I see a non-cat" is a scalar negation: it means that you see
>something that belongs on the same scale with cats, but at a different
>point.  (It isn't obvious what this scale is; "I see a non-white object"
>makes it fairly clear that it is *some* color or other, just not white.)
Interesting - I don't know much about Lojban, but it sounds as if the
"scalarity" of the negation really depends on context.  Although the most
obvious conclusion from "I see a non-cat" is that I see something which is
not a cat but which is near enough to a cat for me to describe it with
reference to "cat" and not some other object <gasp>. However, couldn't my
toaster, or really any extant object other than a cat be a non-cat?  The
scalar component makes more sense with the non-white object, but then we are
negating the quality of whiteness (adjective), rather than the object
itself.

Andy







_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Replies