From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Sep 24 11:57:50 1997
Message-Id: <199709241657.LAA21388@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Wed Sep 24 11:57:50 1997
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: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  1176


> From:          "Engdahl, Rod" <engdahl@VISA.COM>

> I am a new poster to this group, and not a linguist.  please be kind . .
> .;)
>
> > (1) If na`e entails na: How to say something equivlant to na`e
> >     but not entailing 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.

Hmm. I think you're right. Sort of. Except that
"I'm not only English" implies that I am English, whereas
"mi na`e gliselgugde" doesn't imply that I am English; it just
implies I have some other nationality. The others are arguing
that is also means I'm not English.

The "su`o broda cei bu`a poi blah blah" construction is used
to quantify over predicates, and "bu`a" thereafter functions
as a brivla and as a bound predicate-variable.
[I feel uncomfortable with the logic of this stuff, so may
have expressed this clumsily.]

--And