From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:54 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 11240 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1997 00:26:27 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 25 Sep 1997 00:26:27 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.DD53A7AB@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 2:26:16 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:24:23 +1000 Reply-To: HACKER G N Sender: Lojban list From: HACKER G N Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? X-To: And Rosta X-cc: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <0EH000CHIJYGA9@newcastle.edu.au> Content-Length: 1042 Lines: 29 Message-ID: On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, And Rosta wrote: > John: > > Chris Bogart wrote: > > > > > [Y]our definition (that na'e entails > > > na), plus your claim (that any set of arguments > > > have *some* relationship) > > > together imply that na'e will be logically > > > equivalent to na. > > > > But not all relationships are relevant, only those > > that are reasonable scalar alternatives to the one > > denied. > > Is this merely pragmatics, or is one actually asserting, > by using na`e, that the relationship is relevant? > (i.e. "su`o broda poi relevant to di`u", or something > like that) > That's not pragmatics, that's semantics. It's part of the reason why scalar negation was invented in the first place, so you wouldn't be able to say "That's not a brown chair" while allowing the possibility of someone else's saying, "No, it's a Shetland pony". That kind of broadly scoped negation is left up to "na". "Na'e" is much narrower, and implies some sort of commensurability between the concept being negated, and the one being affirmed. Geoff