Re: RV: na'e entails na?

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

Don:
> > (2) If na`e doesn't entail na: How to say something equivlant to
> >     na`e + na?
>
> This is dead easy:
>
>     .i .abu by. cy. na broda .ije na'ego'i
>
> and go'i != broda because broda is false.

I know that "na broda .ije ja`a go`i" is defined as a contradiction
rather than a tautology, because "ja`a" substitutes for "na"
rather than taking "na broda" within its scope. But is the
same true of NA`E? (I think you're right, but want confirmation.)

> > (1) If na`e entails na: How to say something equivlant to na`e
> >    but not entailing na?
>
> I see what you mean, it is extremely difficult to formulate something
> eliminating the extra condition.  However, how often would one want to say
> such a thing (pragmatics as you say)?

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" [I'm taking x1 of
selgugde to be a citizen]. But since for example someone can be a
citizen of both France and Britain, "na`e fraso zei selgugde"
would not work if it entails "na fraso zei selgugde". "na fraso
..." gives me everyone who isn't French, whereas I want
everyone who is a citizen of a country other than France.
For that I would like to use "na`e fraso", but will not be
able to if everyone bar me gets their way!

--And