Message-Id: <199709230151.UAA19091@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Date: Mon Sep 22 20:51:28 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: {na'e} X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1708 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Sep 22 20:51:28 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU cu'u la markl >But this means that a cat can both scratch and other-than-scratch >the same chair at the same time: > > .i lo mlatu ca'o vreta lo stizu > .ije lo mlatu ca'o na'e vreta lo stizu > >So, unless this usage of {na'e} is incorrect, we can say {na'e} >without entailing or implying {na}. But with that usage of na'e, your second sentence says nothing: ro da ro de zo'u da na'e vreta de For every x, and for every y: x other-than-sits with respect to y So {lo mlatu ca'o na'e vreta lo stizu} would be just a tautology. >Setting aside any problems created by comparing the raised x2 of >{djica} with the unraised x2 of {nitcu}, we might arrive at: > > .i mi na'e djica tu'a do > .ije mi nitcu do > >or something of that sort. There may indeed be better ways to >translate "not only" negation from English into Lojban. But, unless >this way is incorrect, we _can_ say {na'e} without entailing or >implying {na}. But your first sentence wouldn't be saying anything. Of course there is always a relationship that holds between any two given arguments, even though it may be hard to find the right selbri for it. BTW, you can get that meaning using {ju}: i mi djica tu'a do iseju mi nitcu do I may or may not want you, but in any case I need you. That is what you would be saying with that weak meaning of {na'e}. > The question that remains is this: Do these sample >utterances use the word {na'e} correctly? More succinctly: Does >{na'e} really mean "other than"? Not in its weak sense. "Other" in English can have the meaning of "different", or the meaning of "additional". Lojban {na'e} has the meaning of "different", I think. co'o mi'e xorxes