From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412162034.AA28981@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Plural
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:34:26 -0500 (EST)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199412160054.AA23835@nfs1.digex.net> from "Veijo Vilva" at Dec 15, 94 09:47:33 pm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:        940
Status: RO

mi pu cusku di'e

> > Veijo's remark that "{go'i} doesn't replicate the {na}" is incorrect.
> > A bare "go'i" without any NA ("na" or "ja'a") replicates any "na" in the
> > referent, but if an explicit NA is present before the "go'i", it overrides
> > any NA in the referent.  Thus:

la veion. cusku di'e

>   Just my too careless use of English. What I meant at the time was
>   that {go'i} doesn't replicate {na} so as to result in two {na}s
>   in a row :-) when you say {na go'i} after a bridi with {na} :-)

I assumed you meant that, which is why I said "Veijo's remark" rather than
"Veijo's claim" or some such.  Still, the statement was made and wasn't
contradicted at the time, and if overgeneralized would be taken to read that
"go'i" after a negative claim asserts the positive instead of the negative.

[correct explanation deleted]

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.