12. Scalar negation of selbri

Negation is too large and complex a topic to explain fully in this chapter; see Chapter 15. In brief, there are two main types of negation in Lojban. This section is concerned with so-called ``scalar negation'', which is used to state that a true relation between the sumti is something other than what the selbri specifies. Scalar negation is expressed by cmavo of selma'o NAhE:

12.1)    la .alis. cu na'e ke cadzu klama [ke'e] le zarci
    Alice non- (walkingly goes) to-the market.
    Alice other-than (walkingly goes) to-the market.
    Alice doesn't walk to the market.

12.2)    la .alis. cu na'e cadzu klama le zarci
    Alice non- walkingly goes to-the market.
    Alice doesn't walk to the market.

Of course, any of the simple selbri types explained in Section 9 may be used in place of brivla in any of these examples:

12.3)    la djonz. cu na'e pamoi cusku
    Jones is non-1st speaker
    Jones is not the first speaker.

Since only ``pamoi'' is negated, an appropriate inference is that he is some other kind of speaker.

Here is an assortment of more complex examples showing the interaction of scalar negation with ``bo'' grouping, ``ke'' and ``ke'e'' grouping, logical connection, and sumti linked with ``be'' and ``bei'':

12.4)    mi na'e sutra cadzu be fi le birka be'o
        klama le zarci
    I ((non-quickly) ( walking using the arms))
        go-to the market.
    I go to the market, walking using my arms
        other than quickly.

In Example 12.4, ``na'e'' negates only ``sutra''. Contrast Example 12.5:

12.5)    mi na'e ke sutra cadzu be fi le birka [be'o] ke'e
        klama le zarci
    I non- ( quickly (walking using the arms) )
        go-to the market.
    I go to the market, other than by walking
        quickly on my arms.

Now consider Example 12.6 and Example 12.7, which are equivalent in meaning, but use ``ke'' grouping and ``bo'' grouping respectively:

12.6)    mi sutra cadzu be fi le birka be'o je masno
        klama le zarci
    I (quickly -- (walking using the arms) and slowly)
        go-to the market.
    I go to the market, both quickly walking
        using my arms and slowly.

12.7) mi ke sutra cadzu be fi le birka [be'o] ke'e
        je masno klama le zarci
    I ((quickly (walking using the arms))
        and slowly) go-to the market.
    I go to the market, both quickly walking
        using my arms and slowly.

However, if we place a ``na'e'' at the beginning of the selbri in both Example 12.6 and Example 12.7, we get different results:

12.8)    mi na'e sutra cadzu be fi le birka be'o
        je masno klama le zarci
    I ((non- quickly) -- (walking using the arms)
        and slowly) go-to the market.
    I go to the market, both walking using my arms
        other than quickly, and also slowly.

12.9) mi na'e ke sutra cadzu be fi le birka [be'o] ke'e
        je masno klama le zarci
    I (non-(quickly (walking using the arms))
        and slowly) go-to the market.
    I go to the market, both other than quickly
        walking using my arms, and also slowly.

The difference arises because the ``na'e'' in Example 12.9 negates the whole construction from ``ke'' to ``ke'e'', whereas in Example 12.8 it negates ``sutra'' alone.

Beware of omitting terminators in these complex examples! If the explicit ``ke'e'' is left out in Example 12.9, it is transformed into:

12.10)  mi na'e ke sutra cadzu be fi le birka be'o
        je masno klama [ke'e] le zarci
    I non-(quickly ((walking using the arms))
        and slowly) go-to) the market.
    I do something other than quickly both
        going to the market walking using my arms
        and slowly going to the market.

And if both ``ke'e'' and ``be'o'' are omitted, the results are even sillier:

12.11)  mi na'e ke sutra cadzu be fi le birka
        je masno klama [be'o] [ke'e] le zarci
    I non-(quickly walk on my (arm-type
        and slow) goers) on the market.
    I do something other than quickly walking using the
        goers, both arm-type and slow, relative-to the market.

In Example 12.11, everything after ``be'' is a linked sumti, so the place structure is that of ``cadzu'', whose x2 place is the surface walked upon. It is less than clear what an ``arm-type goer'' might be. Furthermore, since the x3 place has been occupied by the linked sumti, the ``le zarci'' following the selbri falls into the nonexistent x4 place of ``cadzu''. As a result, the whole example, though grammatical, is complete nonsense. (The bracketed Lojban words appear where a fluent Lojbanist would understand them to be implied.)

Finally, it is also possible to place ``na'e'' before a ``gu'e ... gi'' logically connected tanru construction. The meaning of this usage has not yet been firmly established.