RV: na'e entails na?

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

la djan cusku di'e


>Consider the following sentence: what is its truth value?
>
>1)      li vo na'e sumji li re li re

FALSE

>On the "na'e entails na" view, this means "4 is not the sum of 2 and 2"
>and is false.  On the other (and/djan) view, it means "4 is a non-sum
>of 2 and 2" and is true, since 4 is a product (which is not a sum)
>of 2 and 2.

No, this can't be right. If the non-sum is true, then not only has there to
be
another relationship, but the sum must be false. Otherwise na'e becomes
quite useless. For a given set of arguments, there are always any number
of relationships that hold among them, so that with your definition, for
any broda, {na'e broda} will be a tautology with any argument set.

Let's say {zmana'u} means "x1 is a positive number". Then

            li vo na'e zmana'u
            4 is non-positive

According to you that is a true statement, since 4 is, for example, an
even number, so it is true that it is something other than positive,
besides being positive. I don't  think that makes sense. {na'e broda}
does say that a relationship other than {broda} holds, but first it must
say that {broda} doesn't.

With your definition, all of these are true:

            ro da cu na'e blabi
            Everything is non-white. (Even the whitest of things.)

            ro remna cu na'e remna
            Every human is a non-human.
            (Since every human is, for example, a selmamta.)

If John loves Mary, then it is true that

            la djan na'e prami la meris
            John non-loves Mary

because he is also looking at her.

Could you give a sentence with your definition of na'e as
a selbri modifier that says something useful?

co'o mi'e xorxes