Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rHzce-00007DC; Wed, 14 Dec 94 21:44 EET Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.9/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA18807 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 21:44:21 +0200 Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI (MAILER@FINHUTC) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-7 #2494) id <01HKN8U3JW4W00090A@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 19:43:11 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 5124; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 21:44:12 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7375; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 20:40:52 +0100 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 14:37:51 -0500 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Re: plural In-reply-to: <199412140617.BAA29819@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Logical Language Group on Wed, 14 Dec 1994 01:15:29 -0500) Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: "Mark E. Shoulson" Message-id: <01HKN8U469OS00090A@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2113 Lines: 59 >Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 01:15:29 -0500 >From: Logical Language Group >Content-Type: text >Content-Length: 2871 >>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 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 Ah, here's *something*... It's from Nick, in September 1992, in response to... hey, a post from me, in which I discussed his ckafybarja entry. He had: >.i lei bitmu cu se jadni loi carmi bo vrici joi na'e mitsarxe beja'i le tcaci >.i le re cpare ka'amru poi mitkruca se punji fi le cravro gapru na minrysarxe >.u'iru'e >.i na go'i fa loi drata ke bitmu se punji nemu'u lo dembi poi vreta lo kicne >ku'o jo'u lo slabu tcityta'o nesecu'u lu vi xagrai loi tauzba pe levi >tcadu li'u To which I said: Doesn't the {na go'i} *negate* the previous sentence, so that you're saying "The climbing axes ... weren't symmetrical. Which is not the case for the objects hanging on the other walls..." --- i.e. they *were* symmetrical! To which he replied: >I might have to look up the negation paper for that. {go'i} doesn't replicate >all details of the previous jufra: it leaves out attitudinals, for example. >I don't know if it'd also leave out {na}. Actually, I doubt it, but seem >to recall that it did in the negation paper. Veijo corroborated: > If I remember correctly, {go'i} doesn't replicate the {na}, so > {na go'i} just repeats the negation. I don't see anything else on the thread. What's the officicial word? ~mark