Re: RV: na'e entails na?

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.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".

If the grammar of po`o is robust enough, that looks like it
could work. (As it stands, it looks to me as if it groups as

   po`o(na (fraso (selgu`e)))

because don't UI bind to the previous word? - But if so you can
change it to "na fraso po`o selgu`e".)

I express doubts because although I've not checked in the Book
whether John invented some proper grammar for po`o, I remember
when it was introduced amid a great fog of illogicality and
confusion about "only" - the debate was "solved" by introducing
a word in UI (i.e. with pretty much vague semantics) glossed
as "only".

Specifically, we need to be sure that "na broda po`o" does NOT
entail "na broda".

But anyway, if the Engdahl-Wiggins "na ..po`o" proposal works,
then I shall give up contesting {na`e}.

--And