Message-Id: <199709241418.JAA16617@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Date: Wed Sep 24 09:19:03 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1154 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Sep 24 09:19:03 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Geoff: > On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, John Cowan wrote: > > I retract my arguments, and move to the Jorge/lojbab camp. > > Yes, I go to the Jorge/lojbab camp too, subject to your proviso that the > positive statement implied by "na'e" must be related to the negative > statement along some intelligible scale. (If it weren't, one wouldn't be > able to make much sense of "to'e", for example.) Before it gets settled by consensus-of-everyone-except-me, can we see how the following things can be said: (1) If na`e entails na: How to say something equivlant to na`e but not entailing na? (2) If na`e doesn't entail na: How to say something equivlant to na`e + na? (1) I can do only by "su`o broda" & long circumlocution, & even then it would be hard to get the "relevant scalar neg" idea by circumlocutory means. (2) I have no idea about at all, but still strikes me as a likelier way of avoiding overunwieldy circumlocution. I take it we are now agreed that (i) "entailing na" = "equivalent to a {na ku} at the end of the bridi, and (ii) na`e either asserts or at least implicates that the negation is along some contextually relevant scale. --- And