Re: RV: na'e entails na?

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Xorx:
> la kris cusku di'e
> >I think you're right about this, but your definition (that na'e entails
> >na), plus your claim (that any set of arguments have *some* relationship)
> >together imply that na'e will be logically equivalent to na.
>
> No, they are not logically equivalent because they have different
> scope: na negates the whole bridi, while na'e negates only the selbri.
> It doesn't make much difference with singular arguments, but it makes
> a big difference as soon as you introduce quantification. For example,
> these two say very different things:
>
>                     mi na'e prami lo prenu
>                     There is at least one person that I don't love.
>
>                     mi na prami lo prenu
>                     It is not the case that there is at least one person
> that I love.
>                     (i.e. I don't love anyone.)

So you are arguing that "mi na`e prami lo prenu" =

     mi prami lo prenu na ku

In other words, na`e before selbri = na ku at the end of the bridi,
so na`e is basically redundant, added only for convenience.

I don't see any particular appeal in this position.

> > So the choice is "na'e" having no logical
> >import at all, or "na'e" duplicating "na".  Maybe we'll have to consider
> >its pragmatics if it has nothing to contribute logically.
>
> It has a lot to contribute, because using na with its wide scope
> usually is not what is wanted. In any case, I think that there has
> already been enough usage of {na'e} before this discussion
> that it can be settled by looking at how it has been used.

When doing linguistics one learns that mere usage is not
a sufficient indicator of the rules of the language: speakers'
intuitions must be consulted too. I think that when one
reflects upon the difference in meaning between "na zei broda"
(=nalbroda) and "na`e zei broda" (=narbroda), it will be
clear that "na`e" is not merely a narrow-scope version of
"na".

--And