Message-Id: <199709221818.NAA01019@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com
Date: Mon Sep 22 13:19:11 1997
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>
Subject:      {na'e}
To:         LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 3188
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Sep 22 13:19:11 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

coi doi lobypli

la bob. cusku di'e

> 3.  Some cat other-than-sits with respect to some chair.
>     lo mlatu ca'o na'e vreta lo stizu

mi terselpinka di'e

Obviously, a cat and a chair can be co-arguments of more than one
predicate relation at the same time.  For instance, a cat can sit
in a chair while also scratching it:

  .i lo mlatu ca'o vreta lo stizu
  .ije lo mlatu ca'o rakygau lo stizu

But this means that a cat can both scratch and other-than-scratch
the same chair at the same time:

  .i lo mlatu ca'o vreta lo stizu
  .ije lo mlatu ca'o na'e vreta lo stizu

So, unless this usage of {na'e} is incorrect, we can say {na'e}
without entailing or implying {na}.

la djan. cusku di'e

> Consider the following sentence: what is its truth value?
>
>     li vo na'e sumji li re li re
>
> On the "na'e entails na" view, this means "4 is not the sum of 2
> and 2" and is false.  On the other (and/djan) view, it means "4 is
> a non-sum of 2 and 2" and is true, since 4 is a product (which is
> not a sum) of 2 and 2.

mi terselpinka di'e

We have a similar situation here, such that 4 is both a sum and a
product of the same numbers at the same time:

  .i li vo cu sumji li re li re
  .ije li vo cu pilji li re li re

Again, this means that 4 is both a sum and a non-sum of 2 and 2 at
the same time:

  .i li vo cu sumji li re li re
  .ije li vo cu na'e sumji li re li re

So again, unless this usage of {na'e} is incorrect, we can say {na'e}
without entailing or implying {na}.

These examples remind me of a form of negation used in English:
negation with "not only":

  I not only want you, I also need you.

How would we translate this into Lojban?  We can start with:

  .i mi djica tu'a do
  .ije mi nitcu do

Since needing and wanting are different selbri, this may justify the
use of {na'e}:

  .i mi djica tu'a do
  .ije mi na'e djica tu'a do

Setting aside any problems created by comparing the raised x2 of
{djica} with the unraised x2 of {nitcu}, we might arrive at:

  .i mi na'e djica tu'a do
  .ije mi nitcu do

or perhaps:

  .i mi na'e djica tu'a do
  .i go'i ki'u mi nitcu do

or something of that sort.  There may indeed be better ways to
translate "not only" negation from English into Lojban.  But, unless
this way is incorrect, we _can_ say {na'e} without entailing or
implying {na}.

la lojbab. cusku di'e

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

mi spuda la lojbab. di'e

The logico-semantic nuances of negation are notoriously difficult to
understand.

Our discussion has produced several sample utterances in which other-
than-selbri fails to entail not-bridi.  In fact, we've shown that
selbri and other-than-selbri can both be true for the same sumti
simultaneously.  The question that remains is this:  Do these sample
utterances use the word {na'e} correctly?  More succinctly:  Does
{na'e} really mean "other than"?

co'omi'e markl.