From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Tue Sep 23 10:31:28 1997 Message-Id: <199709231531.KAA14082@locke.ccil.org> Date: Tue Sep 23 10:31:28 1997 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: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1999 Xorx: > la kris cusku di'e > >I think you're right about this, but your definition (that na'e entails > >na), plus your claim (that any set of arguments have *some* relationship) > >together imply that na'e will be logically equivalent to na. > > No, they are not logically equivalent because they have different > scope: na negates the whole bridi, while na'e negates only the selbri. > It doesn't make much difference with singular arguments, but it makes > a big difference as soon as you introduce quantification. For example, > these two say very different things: > > mi na'e prami lo prenu > There is at least one person that I don't love. > > mi na prami lo prenu > It is not the case that there is at least one person > that I love. > (i.e. I don't love anyone.) So you are arguing that "mi na`e prami lo prenu" = mi prami lo prenu na ku In other words, na`e before selbri = na ku at the end of the bridi, so na`e is basically redundant, added only for convenience. I don't see any particular appeal in this position. > > So the choice is "na'e" having no logical > >import at all, or "na'e" duplicating "na". Maybe we'll have to consider > >its pragmatics if it has nothing to contribute logically. > > It has a lot to contribute, because using na with its wide scope > usually is not what is wanted. In any case, I think that there has > already been enough usage of {na'e} before this discussion > that it can be settled by looking at how it has been used. When doing linguistics one learns that mere usage is not a sufficient indicator of the rules of the language: speakers' intuitions must be consulted too. I think that when one reflects upon the difference in meaning between "na zei broda" (=nalbroda) and "na`e zei broda" (=narbroda), it will be clear that "na`e" is not merely a narrow-scope version of "na". --And