Message-Id: <199709191821.NAA09845@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Date: Fri Sep 19 13:21:35 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: na`e X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1461 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Sep 19 13:21:35 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU And: > 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. Certainly scalar negation in English does not entail >"bridi negation", and there is explicit comparison with >English. I think that in the example in question na'e should entail na, i.e. ko'a na'e broda Koha is a non-broda where ko'a ia a singular reference, should entail ko'a na broda Koha is not a broda Otherwise I wouldn't know what a non-broda is. About the only thing we know for sure about non-brodas is that they're not brodas. But in the general case, a bridi with na'e does not entail the bridi with na. For example: lo mlatu na'e blabi Some cat is non-white certainly does not entail lo mlatu na blabi It is not the case that some cat is white. The first is true, the second one false. This of course has to do with scopes. As for to'e (and also no'e) I agree that they're unrelated to the negation issue. Something could very well be a broda and a to'e broda at the same time without contradiction. (For example someone could be the tallest and at the same time the shortest person in a room, but they couldn't be the tallest and non-tallest at the same time.) co'o mi'e xorxes