Re: na`e

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>Although elsewhere the phrase "denies a relationship" does crop up en
>passant when some other point is being made (so that it is not
>clear whether the phrasing is a merely misleading attempt to
>avoid explaining scalar negation solely by means of English
>equivalents)

I guess I must be dense, but I cannot see any other interpretation for
"denies relationship" other than "claims the relationshio is false" which
woudl seem to be a good definition of contradictory negation.

Alternatively, I do not see how selbri negation, at least of the to'e and
na'e varieties, could NOt entail contradictory negation.

>Contradictory
>negation on the other hand, is not selbri negation, and is involved
>in complex scope interactions with other elements of logical
>meaning.

This is true, and I am the last person to claim mastery of the idiosyncracies
of the scope issue, having been run around in circles the last time it came
up (in the "any" discussion).  But I BELIEVE that, while selbri negation
generally covers a smaller scope than a bridi, it inherently contradicts
the un-negated bridi that it forms a part of.  Thus it leads to contradictory
negation PLUS additional information.

pc is the one who analyzed Horn, and is most qualified to comment on this.
Are you listening???

lojbab