From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Sep 24 10:43:29 1997
Message-Id: <199709241543.KAA19118@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Wed Sep 24 10:43:29 1997
Reply-To: "Engdahl, Rod" <engdahl@VISA.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Engdahl, Rod" <engdahl@VISA.COM>
Subject:      Re: RV: na'e entails na?
X-To:         lojban post <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  1020


I am a new poster to this group, and not a linguist.  please be kind . .
.;)

> And Rosta
>
> (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.

Just for my own clarification, would this be equivalent to the
construction
*not only* ?  su'o suggests this to me, but also seems to imply a
quantitative relationship, rather than a qualitative one.

> (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