Re: RV: na'e entails na?

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

John:
> Chris Bogart wrote:
>
> > [Y]our 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.
>
> But not all relationships are relevant, only those
> that are reasonable scalar alternatives to the one
> denied.

Is this merely pragmatics, or is one actually asserting,
by using na`e, that the relationship is relevant?
(i.e. "su`o broda poi relevant to di`u", or something
like that)

--And