From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 07 16:53:51 2006
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63)	(envelope-from <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>)	id 1GsTzr-00068J-Gq	for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:53:51 -0800
Received: from phma.optus.nu ([166.82.175.165] helo=ixazon.dynip.com)	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)	(envelope-from <phma@phma.optus.nu>)	id 1GsTzo-00068A-9k	for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:53:51 -0800
Received: from [192.168.7.3] (unknown [192.168.7.3])	by ixazon.dynip.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1A1CE8B0	for <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; Thu,  7 Dec 2006 19:53:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4578B764.9070808@phma.optus.nu>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:52:52 -0500
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Windows/20050711)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Interaction of {na} and {su'o}
References: <537d06d00612071116i5f7c265wd9a26f4e7d79a1f0@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <537d06d00612071116i5f7c265wd9a26f4e7d79a1f0@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--)
X-archive-position: 3826
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: phma@phma.optus.nu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

Philip Newton wrote:
> A sentence on jsk ( http://www.teddyb.org/jsk/showpost.php?post=565 ),
> "Every pig is an animal, but not every animal is a pig", has the
> proposed translation {.i ro xarju cu danlu .i ku'i su'o danlu na
> xarju}.
> 
> That made me think, since I'm not really clear about how {na}
> interacts with things.
> 
> My feeling, though, is that {su'o danlu na xarju} is the same as {naku
> su'o danku cu xarju} and/or {naku zo'u su'o danku cu xarju}, which
> would mean "It is not the fact that: at least one animal is a pig",
> which is obviously false.
> 
> Would that mean that {ro danlu na xarju} and/or {naku ro danlu cu
> xarju} and/or {naku zo'u ro danlu cu xarju} would be better? Or would
> it have to be something like {naku zo'u da poi danlu zo'u da xarju}?
> What about {su'o danlu cu na'e xarju}?

{su'o danlu na xarju} is equivalent to {naku su'o danlu cu xarju}. "Some 
animals are not pigs" is {su'o danlu naku xarju}. {su'o danlu na'e 
xarju} means "some animals are other than pigs", which is almost the 
same, but not logically equivalent.

Pierre