Re: na`e

["Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>]

>Date:         Sat, 20 Sep 1997 07:46:00 -0400
>From: bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM
>
>  3.  The cat sits otherwise than on the chair.
>      lo mlatu ca'o na'e vreta lo stizu
>
>The latter utterance contains *two* propositions:
>
>     a. That it is false that the cat sits on the chair; and,
>     b. that some other proposition is true.
>
>
>    to ra'unai lo mlatu ca'a vreta lo cuktykajna toi
>    (Incidentally, the cat actually reposes on a
>    book-type-of-counter/shelf.)

[snip]

>Chapter 15:
>    But what exactly does na'e negate?  Does the negation include only
>    the gismu klama, which is the entire selbri in this case, or does
>    it include the le zarci as well?  In Lojban, the answer is
>    unambiguously ``only the gismu''.  The cmavo na'e always applies
>    only to what follows it.

So that would mean that {lo mlatu ca'o na'e vreta lo stizu} means "the cat
other-than-sits on the chair" (NOT that the cat sits other than on the
chair).  The "other statement" that is true might be {my. ca'o citka lo
stizu} or {my. ca'o cadzu lo stizu} etc.  Does that make sense?  If {na'e}
negates what comes after it, that's the brivla here, not the following
sumti as you seem to have interpreted.

Sorry if this is wrong, or right but old news.

~mark