WikiDiscuss

---

wrote:

>
> pc:
> > The hardest part of this section is going to
> be
> > to explain the differences among {na}, {na'e}
> and
> > {to'e} — indeed, the applications of each,
> never
> > mind focusing on the differences.
>
> The differences are not too difficult. {na}
> negates
> a bridi, a whole sentence, so it is clearly
> different
> from the other two that change a brivla into
> another
> brivla.

Well, {naku} at least seems to modify predicates
(and does in Logic, for whatever that is worth)
and has to to give a consistent story about the
difference between {na} and {naku} — which you
have seemed to want for other purposes before.
If {na} and {naku} differ only in where they can
occur, but have the same function throughout,
then this problem fades away, but some subtle
difference in quantifiers, for example, will
arise, requiring just the sort of messy
recalculations that people have objected too (as
too hard, usually) in the past.

> > How is a
> > contrary different from a contradictory when
> > applied to a predicate or a term?
>
> {na} is never applied to predicates or terms,
> always to predications. {na'e} is never applied
> to predications, always to predicates or terms.

see above.

> > What is an
> > opposite of something that does not appear to
> be
> > scalar or circular?
>
> Nonsense, probably.
>
> > What is a neutral position
> > even when opposites are clear ("The Golden
> Mean
> > is best"?)?
>
> When opposites are clear, the neutral position
> is usually
> also clear. When it's not clear, it's not
> clear, there's
> probably not much more to say.

I think it is rarely clear short of a rule: is
the neutral between black and white gray or
transparent or reddish orange? Each is possible
-- actual in some contexts (which contexts are
not readily specifiable and would not work for
even the neutral between red and green, supposing
them to be opposites).

>
> > What do any of these concepts mean
> > when applied to things rather than properties
> or
> > propositions?
>
> {na'e bo} is fairly clear, and has seen quite
> a lot of usage.

Then you need to summarize the usage. All the
example I could find were of people asking what
the hell it meant.

> I don't have much of an idea as to what {to'e
> bo} and
> {no'e bo} mean.
>
> > There are some clear cases for
> > each, but generalization is not clear. Do
> > semantic fields play a role here and what are
> the
> > crucial factors (even if fields are involved
> > somehow)? Until these questions are dealt
> with,
> > this category seems basically unattended.

I taike back the bit about there being clear
cases of each.

> I still have to add examples, but I'm not sure
> I'll be
> able to flesh out the definitions themselves
> much more than
> what's there. (Except for a few more things I
> have to write
> for {na}, but not so much on its meaning as on
> its syntax.)
> I welcome suggestions for improvement.
>
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>