Re: RV: na'e entails na?

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

Geoff:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, John Cowan wrote:
> > I retract my arguments, and move to the Jorge/lojbab camp.
>
> Yes, I go to the Jorge/lojbab camp too, subject to your proviso that the
> positive statement implied by "na'e" must be related to the negative
> statement along some intelligible scale. (If it weren't, one wouldn't be
> able to make much sense of "to'e", for example.)

Before it gets settled by consensus-of-everyone-except-me, can
we see how the following things can be said:

(1) If na`e entails na: How to say something equivlant to na`e
    but not entailing na?
(2) If na`e doesn't entail na: How to say something equivlant to
    na`e + na?

(1) I can do only by "su`o broda" & long circumlocution, & even
then it would be hard to get the "relevant scalar neg" idea by
circumlocutory means.
(2) I have no idea about at all, but still strikes me as a
likelier way of avoiding overunwieldy circumlocution.

I take it we are now agreed that (i) "entailing na" = "equivalent
to a {na ku} at the end of the bridi, and (ii) na`e either
asserts or at least implicates that the negation is along some
contextually relevant scale.

---
And