Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 01:37:49 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: plural
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Reply-to: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-id: <01HKNVOX81TI0009WF@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
To:         shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU
Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 950
Lines: 28

>>A more valid comparison would be with na/ja'a. If none is given explicitly,
>>>ja'a is the default one.
>
>>na go'i .i go'i .i go'i
>
>>No I did not contradict myself.  "na" carried over as implict to the go'i.
>>My son and I get into nago'i/ja'ago'i arguments all the time - one little
>>bit of Lojban he knows well.
>
>Wait, no... I specifically remmeber from years back that "na go'i" in
>--More--
>response to a negative jufra is *not* contradiction.  It confused me then,
>but I was told that it was important.  I'm confused; I'm going to find that
>reference... I could swear I recall it from John Cowan or something.  Is it
>tackled in the negation paper?  Will repost when I find what I meant.
>
>~mark
 
In the above example
>>na go'i .i go'i .i go'i
means identically the same thing as
  na go'i .i na go'i .i na go'i
 
The "na" gets carried over, just like any sumti, until explicitly replaced
by a different value, i.e. "ja'a"
 
lojbab