Well. 'uinai' doesn't *mean* 'to'e gleki', though they are rel= ated (I assume 'to'e' is a predicate polar negation) What, exactly is= 'no'e'? Apparently, from your remarks, it denies both extremes (as t= he negation and o might lead one to expect, though I am not sure this thoug= ht entered into its creation - it plays no obvious role in 'na'e', for exam= ple) for scalable predicates. 'na'e' is the predicate version of 'na', cont= radictory negation. giving the predicate of complement class and so a funda= mental logical concept. 'no'e' appears to be more complex, giving the= intersection of the classes for 'na'e' broda' and 'na'e to'e broda'. = But, of course, that takes in a lot more territory than the things "betwee= n" the extremes: it include, in the white example, red, for instance, or fast. So. I suppose that 'no'e' is meant to keep the the result on t= he same scale (as we do pragmatically with 'na'e' often -- sometimes unjust= ifiably), in the example, the grayscale, That might be useful, but I = should think that the first thing to do along that line was to assure that = something just like 'na'e' worked in that way. And then go on to the "defin= itely in the middle" case.

From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 4, 2010 10:15:59 AM<= br>Subject: [lojban] na'e = vs no'e/to'e

How significant is "na'e" in relation to "no'e" and "to'e"?

CASE= 1 -- when both the scalar extremities and the midpoint are semantically cl= ear:

ti no'e blabi
This is neither white nor black.

ti na'e blabi
This is other than= white.

CASE 2 -- when the scalar extremities but not the midpoi= nt are semantically clear:

ti no'e kalri
This is neither open nor= closed.

ti na'e kalri
This is other than open.

CASE 3 -- when nei= ther the scalar extremities nor the midpoint are semantically clear:
ti no'e plise
This is neither an apple nor a tol-apple.

ti na'e plise
This is other than an apple.

"no'e" seems t= o be capable of substituting for "na'e" in many cases, especially in light = of "to'e". We use "na'e" when we mean the absence of the selbri's posi= tive sense AND, possibly, opposite sense. If the negation of both extremiti= es is meant, that wouldn't be different from "no'e", would it? If by "na'e = blabi" I meant "other than white AND other than tol-white (=3D black)" i.e.= "grey", that would correspond to the neutral scalar region to be denoted b= y "no'e blabi" i.e. "grey".

It seems to me that "na'e blabi" means either "no'e blabi" or "to'e bla= bi". "na'e" doesn't seem to have a unique explicit meaning other than being= ambiguous about the no'e/to'e distinction. What are we to make of this amb= iguity? Is it a useful one like the semantics of tanru, or should jbopre le= arn to avoid using it by becoming more wary of the no'e/to'e distinction? I= f not the latter (i.e. the ambiguity of "na'e" is useful), why is it that "= na'e" has no explicit attitudinal equivalent? "UInai" (opposite negation) c= orresponds to "to'e SELBRI", not "na'e SELBRI" (e.g. "uinai" means "to'e gl= eki", not "na'e gleki"), and "UIru'e" (weak affirmation) corresponds to "je= 'aru'e SELBRI", not "na'e SELBRI" (e.g. "uiru'e" means "je'aru'e gleki", no= t "na'e gleki").

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.