Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed
> Rob Speer wrote:
> >It's not meaningless. You might as well be
> complaining that describing
> >something as "not green" is meaningless,
> because that description fits
> >elephants as well as it fits red things.
> Something can have a lot of referents
> >and still be meaningful.
> >
> >
>
> I think it's more along the lines of trying to
> say "lidless bottle" or
> "seer that sees nothing" and ending up saying
> "camel or star". Not very
> helpful!
>
If this is the problem — that contradictory
negation opens too many possibilities — then
maybe you want merely contrary negation, {na'e},
which requires that what is true is in the same
general area (although this is a matter of degree
-- what is true in contradictory negation has
also to be something that excludes what is
negated: "not green" can't mean "camel" unless
camels definitionally are not green).