Message-Id: <199709261533.KAA25745@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Date: Fri Sep 26 10:33:49 1997
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: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0015
Content-Length: 959
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Sep 26 10:33:49 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

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