Re: na`e

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

> >Annoyed by my failure to remember the word "tanru",
> >I bothered to look up the online refgram discussion
> >of na`e. It is completely unclear about whether my
> >contention is correct; it seems that the question has
> >not been addressed. Certain phrases suggest that
> >na`e does entail na, but this is not as far as I
> >can see said explicitly, and the general description
> >of na`e certainly does not imply that na`e entails
> >na.
>
> I  believe that the negation chapter clearly states that scalar negation
> entails contradictory negation AND goes beyond it in stating that some
> other relationship is true.  This would be true for both na'e and to'e,
> but not necessarily for no'e, IMHO.
>
> See the negation chapter, section 3, approx 3 paragraphs past the diagram
> showing the nature of scalar truths for the discussion.

I have read from the diagram to the end of sec 3, and cannot find
any such clear statement.

Although elsewhere the phrase "denies a relationship" does crop up en
passant when some other point is being made (so that it is not
clear whether the phrasing is a merely misleading attempt to
avoid explaining scalar negation solely by means of English
equivalents), the entire tenor of the discussion implies that na`e
does not entail na: we are given English equivalents, and we are
told that scalar negation is selbri negation. Contradictory
negation on the other hand, is not selbri negation, and is involved
in complex scope interactions with other elements of logical
meaning.

I still conclude that the ref gram is vague about whether na`e
entails na, and that this logically entails that in current
Lojban na`e does not entail na.

--And