Re: RV: na'e entails na?

[HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>]

On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, And Rosta wrote:

> Geoff:
> > > 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!
> >
> > Why not just use "drata"? Surely examples like this are part of what it's
> > meant for.
>
> Maybe: try to convince me. Suppose a couple are lying in bed
> discussing what kind of hankypanky they want to get up to,
> e.g. (a) spondoogling, (b) frothspeasing, (c) urxing, or [INC OR]
> (d) suppigulation. One says to the other "I would very much
> enjoy that you na`e suppigulate me", which would mean
> "I would enjoy that you spondoogle me and I would enjoy that
> you frothspease me and I would enjoy that you urx me".

No, that's not correct. If you na'e suppigulate someone, you could EITHER
be spondoogling them, OR frothspeasing them OR urxing them. It doesn't
entail that you do everything that is not suppigulation. Why would it?
That would be saying that you want them to do roda poi na'e nu
suppigulate, which is a totally different claim. If you want someone to
na'e suppigulate you, then you only want them to do su'oda poi na'e
nu suppigulate, which is the DISJUNCT of roda poi na nu suppigulate,
NOT the conjunct.


> Now presumably you are proposing that one should say
> "I would > very much enjoy that you drata suppigulate me", but you will
> surely concede that this tanru is susceptible to a far greater
> variety of interpretations than the na`e version would be.

I don't even understand how you have arrived at this interpretation.
"Na'e" entailing "na" seems just fine for this sentence as it is.

Geoff