Message-Id: <199709230128.UAA18267@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Date: Mon Sep 22 20:28:12 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: RV: na'e entails na? X-To: lojban To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1706 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Sep 22 20:28:12 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU la djan cusku di'e >Consider the following sentence: what is its truth value? > >1) li vo na'e sumji li re li re FALSE >On the "na'e entails na" view, this means "4 is not the sum of 2 and 2" >and is false. On the other (and/djan) view, it means "4 is a non-sum >of 2 and 2" and is true, since 4 is a product (which is not a sum) >of 2 and 2. No, this can't be right. If the non-sum is true, then not only has there to be another relationship, but the sum must be false. Otherwise na'e becomes quite useless. For a given set of arguments, there are always any number of relationships that hold among them, so that with your definition, for any broda, {na'e broda} will be a tautology with any argument set. Let's say {zmana'u} means "x1 is a positive number". Then li vo na'e zmana'u 4 is non-positive According to you that is a true statement, since 4 is, for example, an even number, so it is true that it is something other than positive, besides being positive. I don't think that makes sense. {na'e broda} does say that a relationship other than {broda} holds, but first it must say that {broda} doesn't. With your definition, all of these are true: ro da cu na'e blabi Everything is non-white. (Even the whitest of things.) ro remna cu na'e remna Every human is a non-human. (Since every human is, for example, a selmamta.) If John loves Mary, then it is true that la djan na'e prami la meris John non-loves Mary because he is also looking at her. Could you give a sentence with your definition of na'e as a selbri modifier that says something useful? co'o mi'e xorxes