Re: [lojban] na'e vs no'e/to'e

Well. 'uinai' doesn't *mean* 'to'e gleki', though they are related (I assume 'to'e' is a predicate polar negation) What, exactly is 'no'e'? Apparently, from your remarks, it denies both extremes (as the negation and o might lead one to expect, though I am not sure this thought entered into its creation - it plays no obvious role in 'na'e', for example) for scalable predicates. 'na'e' is the predicate version of 'na', contradictory negation. giving the predicate of complement class and so a fundamental 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 "between" 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 the same scale (as we do pragmatically with 'na'e' often -- sometimes unjustifiably), 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 "definitely in the middle" case.

From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, December 4, 2010 10:15:59 AM
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 clear:

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 midpoint 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 neither 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 to 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 positive sense AND, possibly, opposite sense. If the negation of both extremities 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 (= black)" i.e. "grey", that would correspond to the neutral scalar region to be denoted by "no'e blabi" i.e. "grey".

It seems to me that "na'e blabi" means either "no'e blabi" or "to'e blabi". "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 ambiguity? Is it a useful one like the semantics of tanru, or should jbopre learn to avoid using it by becoming more wary of the no'e/to'e distinction? If 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) corresponds to "to'e SELBRI", not "na'e SELBRI" (e.g. "uinai" means "to'e gleki", 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", not "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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.