Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 08:02:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199709201302.IAA03721@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: bob@rattlesnake.com Sender: Lojban list From: bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM Subject: Re: na`e X-To: lojban@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199709200742.DAA16997@access1.digex.net> (message from Logical Language Group on Sat, 20 Sep 1997 03:42:38 -0400 (EDT)) X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1693 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Sep 20 08:02:42 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU I am puzzled over the confusion. Here are three utterances: 1. The cat sits on the chair. lo mlatu ca'o vreta lo stizu 2. It is false that the cat sits on the chair. lo mlatu na ca'o vreta lo stizu 3. The cat sits otherwise than on the chair. lo mlatu ca'o na'e vreta lo stizu The latter utterance contains *two* propositions: a. That it is false that the cat sits on the chair; and, b. that some other proposition is true. to ra'unai lo mlatu ca'a vreta lo cuktykajna toi (Incidentally, the cat actually reposes on a book-type-of-counter/shelf.) Why do I make this interpretation? Here are extracts from a fairly recent, but pre-baselined copy of the reference grammar: Chapter 10: Unlike contradictory negation, scalar negation asserts a truth: that the bridi is true with some tense other than that specified. The following examples are scalar negation analogues of Examples 18.1 to 18.3: 18.5) mi na'e pu klama le zarci I [non-] [past] go-to the market. I go to the market other than in the past. Chapter 15: But what exactly does na'e negate? Does the negation include only the gismu klama, which is the entire selbri in this case, or does it include the le zarci as well? In Lojban, the answer is unambiguously ``only the gismu''. The cmavo na'e always applies only to what follows it. -- Robert J. Chassell bob@rattlesnake.com 25 Rattlesnake Mountain Road bob@ai.mit.edu Stockbridge, MA 01262-0693 USA (413) 298-4725