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.
meaning that Alice’s relationship to the market is something other than that of walking there. But if the “ke” were omitted, the result would be:
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.
meaning that Alice does go there in some way (“klama” is not negated), but by a means other than that of walking. Example 12.1 negates both “cadzu” and “klama”, suggesting that Alice’s relation to the market is something different from walkingly-going; it might be walking without going, or going without walking, or neither.
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.