From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:26 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 9310 invoked from network); 24 Sep 1997 14:20:49 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 24 Sep 1997 14:20:49 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <13.41FAA3BC@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:20:38 +0100 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 07:18:00 -0700 Reply-To: "Engdahl, Rod" Sender: Lojban list From: "Engdahl, Rod" Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? To: lojban post Content-Length: 987 Lines: 29 Message-ID: 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