From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Thu Dec 15 23:30:20 1994
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA04467
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>); Thu, 15 Dec 1994 23:30:17 -0500
Message-Id: <199412160430.AA04467@nfs1.digex.net>
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 3882; Thu, 15 Dec 94 23:25:10 EST
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2234; Thu, 15 Dec 1994 20:47:19 -0500
Date:         Thu, 15 Dec 1994 20:50:47 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: zo'e (was: kau obverse)
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

la djan cusku di'e

> "zo'e" (or what is the same thing,
> sumti nalnunsku) could even represent "noda":
>
> A:      noda lacri la djordj.
>         Nobody relies on George (to do that).
>
> B:      lacri la frank.
>         Nor Frank either.
>
> Here context allows us to infer that the x1 of B's remark is being copied
> from the x1 of A's, even though A's x1 is a negative.

I would infer that B was saying "they rely on Frank". I have a lot of trouble
getting zo'e to mean "noda". I don't really mind if it is allowed in
principle, but I doubt there will be contexts evident enough where "noda"
can be elided without confusion.

Jorge