Re: negated nitcu

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Don:
> cu'u la .and.
> > Not so subtle, because if {mi na`e nitcu ko`a} is true then either
> > {mi nitcu ko`a} or {mi na nitcu ko`a} can be true.
> Either {mi nitcu ko'a} or {mi na nitcu ko'a} is a tautology and always true.

What I mean is that if you only know {mi na`e nitcu ko`a} then
you don't know whether {mi nitcu ko`a} is true.

> {mi na'e nitcu ko'a} implies that {mi na nitcu ko'a} is true.

It doesn't. At best in certain contexts it pragmatically
implicates that. But certainly it doesn't logically. Unless,
that is, a stipulation has been added to the refgram such
that na`e and to`e are taken to *entail* na.

> The subtlety
> lies in whether the speaker wishes to indicate that there is some sort of
> relationship between the arguments or not.  Using "na" is the more
> diluted than "na'e".  "to'e" for the polar opposite is much stronger than
> "na'e" and gives a definitive relationship.  All of the above could be used
> for the translation, but it shows the fine nuances that jbobau allows.

You're missing the point, which is that na on the one hand and
na`e and to`e on the other are entirely different in their logical
nature, and not merely nuanced variants of one another. Na is
a logical negator. Na`e and to`e are basically like components
in a... - I can't believe it, but I've forgotten the word!: the one
misleading glossed "metaphor".

I say all this from my memory of my knowledge of Lojban, not from
a recent reading of the refgram.

And