Re: RV: na'e entails na?

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote:
> another relationship, but the sum must be false. Otherwise na'e becomes
> quite useless. For a given set of arguments, there are always any number
> of relationships that hold among them, so that with your definition, for
> any broda, {na'e broda} will be a tautology with any argument set.

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.  I say that
because we can deduce that any statement with "na" would be true if we
just chose a different selbri.  (e.g. le mlatu na cpana le stizu, but we
know that le mlatu cu *something* le stizu, so we can conclude that le
mlatu na'e cpana le stizu) 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.

> Could you give a sentence with your definition of na'e as
> a selbri modifier that says something useful?

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.  The "other than"
seems to ask for not just any selbri, but one which could be a plausible
explanation for A's first statement, in this case "te se dunda".

(that's an argument for the definition where na'e doesn't include na; I
haven't thought about the pragmatics of Jorge's definition, but maybe it
would be equally useful)

co'o mi'e kris