Re: RV: na'e entails na?

[HACKER G N <c9709244@ALINGA.NEWCASTLE.EDU.AU>]

On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, And Rosta wrote:

> John:
> > Chris Bogart wrote:
> >
> > > [Y]our 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.
> >
> > But not all relationships are relevant, only those
> > that are reasonable scalar alternatives to the one
> > denied.
>
> Is this merely pragmatics, or is one actually asserting,
> by using na`e, that the relationship is relevant?
> (i.e. "su`o broda poi relevant to di`u", or something
> like that)
>
That's not pragmatics, that's semantics. It's part of the reason why
scalar negation was invented in the first place, so you wouldn't be able
to say "That's not a brown chair" while allowing the possibility of
someone else's saying, "No, it's a Shetland pony". That kind of broadly
scoped negation is left up to "na". "Na'e" is much narrower, and implies
some sort of commensurability between the concept being negated, and the
one being affirmed.

Geoff