Re: RV: na'e entails na?

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

la kris cusku di'e
>I think you're right about this, but your definition (that na'e entails
>na), plus your claim (that any set of arguments have *some* relationship)
>together imply that na'e will be logically equivalent to na.

No, they are not logically equivalent because they have different
scope: na negates the whole bridi, while na'e negates only the selbri.
It doesn't make much difference with singular arguments, but it makes
a big difference as soon as you introduce quantification. For example,
these two say very different things:

                    mi na'e prami lo prenu
                    There is at least one person that I don't love.

                    mi na prami lo prenu
                    It is not the case that there is at least one person
that I love.
                    (i.e. I don't love anyone.)

> So the choice is "na'e" having no logical
>import at all, or "na'e" duplicating "na".  Maybe we'll have to consider
>its pragmatics if it has nothing to contribute logically.

It has a lot to contribute, because using na with its wide scope
usually is not what is wanted. In any case, I think that there has
already been enough usage of {na'e} before this discussion
that it can be settled by looking at how it has been used.

>A- "Mary can't stop talking about John".
>B- "She's in love, is she?"
>A- "la meris. na'e prami la djan .i dy. my. dunda paki'oki'o rupnu" (It's
not
>that she loves him, it's that he gave her a million dollars)
>
>The latter wouldn't have to imply that she *doesn't* love him, just that
>that's not what the speaker wants to address right now.

That can be done with {ju}:

    la meris prami la djan iseju dy dunda le rupnu be li ki'oki'o
    Whether or not she loves him, he gave her a million dollars.

co'o mi'e xorxes