From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:54:15 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 29128 invoked from network); 18 Sep 1997 17:14:22 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 18 Sep 1997 17:14:22 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <1.82CA4986@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 19:14:12 +0100 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:11:33 GMT+0 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: na`e X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1007 Lines: 25 Message-ID: <9BhQChMIUaP.A.hs.X20kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Annoyed by my failure to remember the word "tanru", I bothered to look up the online refgram discussion of na`e. It is completely unclear about whether my contention is correct; it seems that the question has not been addressed. 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. Since the refgram is unclear on this score, either position could become adopted by the speech community. So long as both positions are possible, the semantically weaker one (no entailment of na) would, logically, prevail. What I predict will happen is (i) that na`e will work like English "other than", and will be used to communicate negation, and (ii) that usage will not evidence attention being paid to logic. In other words, a continuation of current trends. --And