Re: na`e

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

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

to'e does not entail negation!

I already gave an example:

        la djan cu clarai lei prenu pe le kumfa
        John is the tallest of the people in the room.

        la djan cu to'e clarai lei prenu pe le kumfa
        John is the opposite-of-tallest of the people in the room.

Both can be true at the same time (if John is the only person
in the room), so the second one does NOT entail:

        la djan na clarai lei prenu pe le kumfa
        John is not the tallest of the people in the room.

Another example:

        la djan la meris cu prami gi'e to'e prami
        John loves and opposite-of-loves Mary.

There is no contradiction there, it is possible to love and
hate someone at the same time. {la djan to'e prami la meris}
does NOT entail {la djan na prami la meris}.

Opposites are not the same as negation, they are different concepts.

> But I BELIEVE that, while selbri negation
>generally covers a smaller scope than a bridi, it inherently contradicts
>the un-negated bridi that it forms a part of.  Thus it leads to
contradictory
>negation PLUS additional information.

I don't think that's true in general. It works only when the sumti
are singular references, but not in the general case.

Another example. Suppose there are four cats in the room,
but I can see only two of them.

        mi na'e viska re le vo mlatu
        I other-than-see two of the four cats. (Maybe I can hear them.)

this does NOT entail that

        mi na viska re le vo mlatu
        It is not the case that I see two of the four cats.

So I agree that {ro na'e broda naku broda}, but let us not generalize
from that to say that the na'e-selbri negates the bridi!

Jorge