Re: RV: na'e entails na?

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

Jorge Joaquin says:
> la djan cusku di'e
>
> >Consider the following sentence: what is its truth value?
> >
> >1)      li vo na'e sumji li re li re
>
> FALSE

TRUE. But (1) is likely to pragmatically implicate a further
proposition, "na sumji", which is FALSE.

> >On the "na'e entails na" view, this means "4 is not the sum of 2 and 2"
> >and is false.  On the other (and/djan) view, it means "4 is a non-sum
> >of 2 and 2" and is true, since 4 is a product (which is not a sum)
> >of 2 and 2.
>
> No, this can't be right. If the non-sum is true, then not only has there to
> be
> 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.

True, but you have to think of "na`e" as tanru-like. In
a sentence like "da xekri gerku", "xekri" adds absolutely
nothing to the truth-conditional meaning, because the relationship
between "xekri" and "gerku" is unspecified. However, the
sentence pragmatically implicates some further proposition where
"xekri" does make a contribution.

It might also help to think of the meaning when you go one step
further than a tanru and create a lujvo. Even you would surely
agree that "li vo narsumji li re li re" (I mean "na`e zei sumji")
is TRUE.

> Let's say {zmana'u} means "x1 is a positive number". Then
>
>             li vo na'e zmana'u
>             4 is non-positive
>
> According to you that is a true statement, since 4 is, for example, an
> even number, so it is true that it is something other than positive,
> besides being positive. I don't  think that makes sense. {na'e broda}
> does say that a relationship other than {broda} holds, but first it must
> say that {broda} doesn't.
>
> With your definition, all of these are true:
>
>             ro da cu na'e blabi
>             Everything is non-white. (Even the whitest of things.)
>
>             ro remna cu na'e remna
>             Every human is a non-human.
>             (Since every human is, for example, a selmamta.)
>
> If John loves Mary, then it is true that
>
>             la djan na'e prami la meris
>             John non-loves Mary
>
> because he is also looking at her.
>
> Could you give a sentence with your definition of na'e as
> a selbri modifier that says something useful?

You have to consider the role of pragmatics. In effect, na`e
adds next to nothing to the logical information encoded in
the sentence (just like tanru, as I pointed out above). But
nonetheless na`e is communicatively useful.

Further, I take it that it is possible to combine or
conjoin na`e and na, if that is required.

There is also a serious logical downside to na`e entailing
na, which both you and I have pointed out - the scope
interactions.

--And