From lojbab Fri Dec 16 03:56:06 1994
Received: from access3.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA14166
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@nfs1.digex.net>); Fri, 16 Dec 1994 03:56:04 -0500
Received: by access3.digex.net id AA24324
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Fri, 16 Dec 1994 03:56:02 -0500
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 03:56:02 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412160856.AA24324@access3.digex.net>
To: shoulson@cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: plural
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: RO

You quote the negation paper thinking it contraduicts what I dsaid yesterday:
>>    It was decided that substitution is the preferable choice, since
>>    it is then clear whether we intend a positive or a negative
>>    sentence without performing any manipulation.  This is the way
>>    English usually works, but not all languages work this way.

Thus is the existing di'u has a "na" present, saying "na go'i" substitutes
a na for the existing na, and the sentence remains unchanged.  To substitute 
for a na in a way to render it non-present, you use the positive counterpart
"ja'a".  Thus my son and I go back and forth: "na go'i" ".i ja'a go'i" "na go'i"
".i ja'a go'i" which is the accurate reflection of "no", "yes", "no", "yes"
(we don;t always include the ".i" in conversational interchange.)

A major reason why "na" carries over, is that even though it is not a sumti,
if you work a sentence out into its exported prenex form, "na broda" turns
into a sumti "naku" in the prenex.

I suspect that the reference to English is confusing in the bnegation paper,
and it may need rewording.

lojbab