From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:54:12 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 31392 invoked from network); 19 Sep 1997 04:48:27 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 19 Sep 1997 04:48:27 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.78E7F718@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 6:48:16 +0100 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:43:25 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: na`e X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 816 Lines: 19 Message-ID: >Annoyed by my failure to remember the word "tanru", >I bothered to look up the online refgram discussion >of na`e. It is completely unclear about whether my >contention is correct; it seems that the question has >not been addressed. Certain phrases suggest that >na`e does entail na, but this is not as far as I >can see said explicitly, and the general description >of na`e certainly does not imply that na`e entails >na. I believe that the negation chapter clearly states that scalar negation entails contradictory negation AND goes beyond it in stating that some other relationship is true. This would be true for both na'e and to'e, but not necessarily for no'e, IMHO. See the negation chapter, section 3, approx 3 paragraphs past the diagram showing the nature of scalar truths for the discussion. lojbab