Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 03:58:00 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199709200858.DAA17532@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: na`e X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1291 X-From-Space-Date: Sat Sep 20 03:58:01 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >Although elsewhere the phrase "denies a relationship" does crop up en >passant when some other point is being made (so that it is not >clear whether the phrasing is a merely misleading attempt to >avoid explaining scalar negation solely by means of English >equivalents) I guess I must be dense, but I cannot see any other interpretation for "denies relationship" other than "claims the relationshio is false" which woudl seem to be a good definition of contradictory negation. Alternatively, I do not see how selbri negation, at least of the to'e and na'e varieties, could NOt entail contradictory negation. >Contradictory >negation on the other hand, is not selbri negation, and is involved >in complex scope interactions with other elements of logical >meaning. This is true, and I am the last person to claim mastery of the idiosyncracies of the scope issue, having been run around in circles the last time it came up (in the "any" discussion). But I BELIEVE that, while selbri negation generally covers a smaller scope than a bridi, it inherently contradicts the un-negated bridi that it forms a part of. Thus it leads to contradictory negation PLUS additional information. pc is the one who analyzed Horn, and is most qualified to comment on this. Are you listening??? lojbab