Re: na`e

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

And:
> Certain phrases suggest that
>na`e does entail na, but this is not as far as I
>can see said explicitly, and the general description
>of na`e certainly does not imply that na`e entails
>na. Certainly scalar negation in English does not entail
>"bridi negation", and there is explicit comparison with
>English.

I think that in the example in question na'e should entail
na, i.e.
                    ko'a na'e broda
                    Koha is a non-broda

where ko'a ia a singular reference, should entail

                    ko'a na broda
                    Koha is not a broda

Otherwise I wouldn't know what a non-broda is. About
the only thing we know for sure about non-brodas is that
they're not brodas.

 But in the general case, a bridi with na'e does not entail
the bridi with na. For example:

                    lo mlatu na'e blabi
                    Some cat is non-white

certainly does not entail

                    lo mlatu na blabi
                    It is not the case that some cat is white.

The first is true, the second one false. This of course has
to do with scopes.

As for to'e (and also no'e) I agree that they're
unrelated to the negation issue. Something could very
well be a broda and a to'e broda at the same time
without contradiction. (For example someone could be the
tallest and at the same time the shortest person in a room,
but they couldn't be the tallest and non-tallest at the same
time.)

co'o mi'e xorxes