From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:53:53 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 20522 invoked from network); 26 Sep 1997 14:19:56 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 26 Sep 1997 14:19:56 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.740EA324@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 16:19:39 +0100
Date:         Fri, 26 Sep 1997 15:12:58 GMT+0
Reply-To:     And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: RV: na'e entails na?
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 959
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <xWW8E29pz2P.A.Ol.B20kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Lojbab:
> >especially given that
> >na`e was invented for exactly the purpose I am proposing,
>
> As the inventor of na'e as something distinct from na, I have to correct this.

My original assertion is confirmed by what you go on to say:

> na'e differs in scope and is grammatical in tanru (where its semantics are
> of course debatable), and na'e is intended to cover the scalar negation of
> natural language.  If natural language scalar negation does or does not
> entail predicate negation, than the same should apply to na'e which is not
> a logical operation.

But yes, we could always check in Horn's book.

> >(ii) merely quantifying over selbri fails to express the notion
> >of "relevant scale" that na`e does - one would need a way of
> >quantifying over "relevant selbri" (which could be done by some
> >new cmavo or other, I suppose...)
>
> We do have a BAI cmavo for scale that could be used for this purpose perhaps.

I don't see how.

--And