From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:54:12 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 8976 invoked from network); 24 Sep 1997 13:04:59 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 24 Sep 1997 13:04:59 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <8.A9F42B33@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:04:48 +0100 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:58:59 GMT+0 Reply-To: And Rosta 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: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1154 Lines: 30 Message-ID: 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