From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:27 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 11292 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1997 00:39:07 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 25 Sep 1997 00:39:07 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.A2A74070@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 2:38:57 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:38:15 +1000 Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? To: And Rosta Cc: Lojban List In-Reply-To: <0EH000CL7KCLA9@newcastle.edu.au> Content-Length: 1979 Lines: 54 Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, And Rosta wrote: > 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? I don't really care, because I agree with Jorge that "na'e" without entailing "na" is a fairly useless concept. But why don't you try using "drata", or maybe "frica"? > (2) If na`e doesn't entail na: How to say something equivlant to > na`e + na? Could be done using some compound phrase, but it might be convoluted. > (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. Maybe if you really want to nail it down, but the concept doesn't seem useful enough to bother with that. > (2) I have no idea about at all, but still strikes me as a > likelier way of avoiding overunwieldy circumlocution. And it doesn't strike me that way. :) > I take it we are now agreed that (i) "entailing na" = "equivalent > to a {na ku} at the end of the bridi, Why at the END of the bridi? It doesn't make any difference where you put the "na" in a bridi; its grammar and semantics are exactly the same. That's another reason why scalar negation was invented; it allows more sophisticated means of grammatically and semantically manipulating the sentence with respect to negation. >and (ii) na`e either > asserts or at least implicates that the negation is along some > contextually relevant scale. "Na'e" always asserts this. Geoff