From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Fri Sep 19 00:58:29 1997 Message-Id: <199709190558.AAA16092@locke.ccil.org> Date: Fri Sep 19 00:58:29 1997 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: na`e To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 839 >Annoyed by my failure to remember the word "tanru", >I bothered to look up the online refgram discussion >of na`e. It is completely unclear about whether my >contention is correct; it seems that the question has >not been addressed. Certain phrases suggest that >na`e does entail na, but this is not as far as I >can see said explicitly, and the general description >of na`e certainly does not imply that na`e entails >na. I believe that the negation chapter clearly states that scalar negation entails contradictory negation AND goes beyond it in stating that some other relationship is true. This would be true for both na'e and to'e, but not necessarily for no'e, IMHO. See the negation chapter, section 3, approx 3 paragraphs past the diagram showing the nature of scalar truths for the discussion. lojbab