Message-Id: <199412142221.AA02714@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Wed, 14 Dec 1994 14:37:51 -0500
Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: plural
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
In-Reply-To:  <199412140617.BAA29819@cs.columbia.edu> (message from Logical
              Language Group on Wed, 14 Dec 1994 01:15:29 -0500)
Status: RO

>Date:         Wed, 14 Dec 1994 01:15:29 -0500
>From: Logical Language Group <lojbab%ACCESS.DIGEX.NET@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
>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