From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:56 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 23485 invoked from network); 23 Sep 1997 02:01:49 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 23 Sep 1997 02:01:49 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <8.DB2D37FC@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 4:01:38 +0100 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:19:53 -0300 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199709230013.SAA13828@indra.com> Content-Length: 1770 Lines: 34 Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote: > another relationship, but the sum must be false. Otherwise na'e becomes > quite useless. For a given set of arguments, there are always any number > of relationships that hold among them, so that with your definition, for > any broda, {na'e broda} will be a tautology with any argument set. I think you're right about this, but your 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. I say that because we can deduce that any statement with "na" would be true if we just chose a different selbri. (e.g. le mlatu na cpana le stizu, but we know that le mlatu cu *something* le stizu, so we can conclude that le mlatu na'e cpana le stizu) So the choice is "na'e" having no logical import at all, or "na'e" duplicating "na". Maybe we'll have to consider its pragmatics if it has nothing to contribute logically. > Could you give a sentence with your definition of na'e as > a selbri modifier that says something useful? A- "Mary can't stop talking about John". B- "She's in love, is she?" A- "la meris. na'e prami la djan .i dy. my. dunda paki'oki'o rupnu" (It's not that she loves him, it's that he gave her a million dollars) The latter wouldn't have to imply that she *doesn't* love him, just that that's not what the speaker wants to address right now. The "other than" seems to ask for not just any selbri, but one which could be a plausible explanation for A's first statement, in this case "te se dunda". (that's an argument for the definition where na'e doesn't include na; I haven't thought about the pragmatics of Jorge's definition, but maybe it would be equally useful) co'o mi'e kris