From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Mon Sep 22 23:20:49 1997 Message-Id: <199709230420.XAA23889@locke.ccil.org> Date: Mon Sep 22 23:20:49 1997 Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? To: lojban X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1834 la kris cusku di'e >I think you're right about this, but your definition (that na'e entails >na), plus your claim (that any set of arguments have *some* relationship) >together imply that na'e will be logically equivalent to na. No, they are not logically equivalent because they have different scope: na negates the whole bridi, while na'e negates only the selbri. It doesn't make much difference with singular arguments, but it makes a big difference as soon as you introduce quantification. For example, these two say very different things: mi na'e prami lo prenu There is at least one person that I don't love. mi na prami lo prenu It is not the case that there is at least one person that I love. (i.e. I don't love anyone.) > So the choice is "na'e" having no logical >import at all, or "na'e" duplicating "na". Maybe we'll have to consider >its pragmatics if it has nothing to contribute logically. It has a lot to contribute, because using na with its wide scope usually is not what is wanted. In any case, I think that there has already been enough usage of {na'e} before this discussion that it can be settled by looking at how it has been used. >A- "Mary can't stop talking about John". >B- "She's in love, is she?" >A- "la meris. na'e prami la djan .i dy. my. dunda paki'oki'o rupnu" (It's not >that she loves him, it's that he gave her a million dollars) > >The latter wouldn't have to imply that she *doesn't* love him, just that >that's not what the speaker wants to address right now. That can be done with {ju}: la meris prami la djan iseju dy dunda le rupnu be li ki'oki'o Whether or not she loves him, he gave her a million dollars. co'o mi'e xorxes