Re: RV: na'e entails na?

[Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>]

> For example, everyone is either citizen of France or citizen of
> some other country. [NB INCLUSIVE OR] I want to describe
> the latter group as "na`e fraso zei selgugde" [I'm taking x1 of
> selgugde to be a citizen]. But since for example someone can be a
> citizen of both France and Britain, "na`e fraso zei selgugde"
> would not work if it entails "na fraso zei selgugde". "na fraso
> ..." gives me everyone who isn't French, whereas I want
> everyone who is a citizen of a country other than France.
> For that I would like to use "na`e fraso", but will not be
> able to if everyone bar me gets their way!

This is relatively straight-forward set theory.

Consider the universal set E = { a, b, c, d, e }

let's have fraso (E) = { a, b, c }
       and glico (E) = { c, d, e }
       i.e. fraso ^ glico (E) = { c }

the set that you wish to express is { c, d, e }, those who are citizens of
elsewhere but possibly also citizens of France.

according to my definitions for na'e and po'o (thanks to Rod Engdahl for
pointing 'not only')

       na'e (fraso (E)) = { d, e }
       po'o (fraso (E)) = { a, b }
and
       !(po'o (fraso (E)) = { c, d, e }

> I want
> everyone who is a citizen of a country other than France.

I conclude that what you should say is "everyone who is a citizen of a country
that is not only France" or "na po'o fraso selgu'e".

ni'oco'omi'e dn.