From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Tue Sep 23 10:52:21 1997
Message-Id: <199709231552.KAA14840@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Tue Sep 23 10:52:21 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: na`e
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  1034


> >Although elsewhere the phrase "denies a relationship" does crop up en
> >passant when some other point is being made (so that it is not
> >clear whether the phrasing is a merely misleading attempt to
> >avoid explaining scalar negation solely by means of English
> >equivalents)
>
> I guess I must be dense, but I cannot see any other interpretation for
> "denies relationship" other than "claims the relationshio is false" which
> woudl seem to be a good definition of contradictory negation.

I agree, but given the context in which "denies relationship" is
used, and given the general tenor of the chapter, and the
properties of the construction, it is quite plausible to construe
"denies relationship" as an unintentionally misleading locution
that was used in order not to make a difficult topic too hard
for the lay reader to follow.

> Alternatively, I do not see how selbri negation, at least of the to'e and
> na'e varieties, could NOt entail contradictory negation.

See reply by Markl.

--And