Re: RV: na'e entails na?

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

Ok, once again I have been persuaded by And to change my
mind. My position now is that na'e by itself does not entail na.
It only does so when the selbri in question partitions its domain
into exclusive regions (I try to explain what I mean by this below).

>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"
[...]
> but will not be
>able to if everyone bar me gets their way!

I now agree with your position, as long as it is clear that {na'e broda}
asserts not just any relationship other than broda. It must claim that a
relationship from a very reduced group holds among the arguments.
For the case of fraso, the relationships that may hold can be glico,
dotco, spano, brito, etc, but not for example ropno, since {ko'a ropno}
does not allow us to conclude that {ko'a na'e fraso}. In the case of
glico we cannot have brito as one of the possible "others", and so on.

How this very restricted group of relationships is selected is the
difficult part, and probably very context dependent. In many cases
the domain of arguments gets partitioned into exclusive regions
by the predicates, and then na'e does entail na. For example,
taking {zmana'u} to mean "x1 is positive", then {ko'a na'e zmana'u},
"k is non-positive", does entail {ko'a na zmana'u}, because the only
possibilities left are that k is negative or that k is zero. All other
relationships that may be true of ko'a are irrelevant.

With this strong restriction, I think there isn't really that much of
a distance between the strong and weak forms of na'e. In many
cases it makes no difference which one we choose. I prefer the
weak form because, as And pointed out, the strong form can be
easily obtained with an end-of-bridi naku, whereas the weak
form cannot.

co'o mi'e xorxes