Re: {na'e}

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

cu'u la markl
 >But this means that a cat can both scratch and other-than-scratch
>the same chair at the same time:
>
>  .i lo mlatu ca'o vreta lo stizu
>  .ije lo mlatu ca'o na'e vreta lo stizu
>
>So, unless this usage of {na'e} is incorrect, we can say {na'e}
>without entailing or implying {na}.

But with that usage of na'e, your second sentence says nothing:

        ro da  ro de zo'u da na'e vreta de
        For every x, and for every y: x other-than-sits with respect to y

So {lo mlatu ca'o na'e vreta lo stizu} would be just a tautology.

 >Setting aside any problems created by comparing the raised x2 of
>{djica} with the unraised x2 of {nitcu}, we might arrive at:
>
>  .i mi na'e djica tu'a do
>  .ije mi nitcu do
>
 >or something of that sort.  There may indeed be better ways to
>translate "not only" negation from English into Lojban.  But, unless
>this way is incorrect, we _can_ say {na'e} without entailing or
>implying {na}.

But your first sentence wouldn't be saying anything. Of course there
is always a relationship that holds between any two given arguments,
even though it may be hard to find the right selbri for it.

BTW, you can get that meaning using {ju}:

        i mi djica tu'a do iseju mi nitcu do
        I may or may not want you, but in any case I need you.

That is what you would be saying with that weak meaning of {na'e}.

 > The question that remains is this:  Do these sample
>utterances use the word {na'e} correctly?  More succinctly:  Does
>{na'e} really mean "other than"?

Not in its weak sense. "Other" in English can have the meaning
of "different", or the meaning of "additional". Lojban {na'e} has the
meaning of "different", I think.

co'o mi'e xorxes