Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 15:34:26 -0500
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject: Re: Plural
In-reply-to: <199412160054.AA23835@nfs1.digex.net> from "Veijo Vilva" at Dec
 15, 94 09:47:33 pm
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Message-id: <01HKQF7Y4QBU0002ES@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 965
Lines: 24

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.