From DPT@HUMA1.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:44:53 2010
Date:         Tue, 16 May 1995 18:23:32 -0400
From: "Dylan P. Thurston" <DPT@HUMA1.BITNET>
Subject:      TECH: Negation
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
X-From-Space-Date: Tue May 16 23:49:23 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Message-ID: <C6YQr4U-hcB.A.-hE.lt0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

In another message, jorge@phyast.pitt.edu wrote:
 > ...
 > i na srana loi na'e remna prenu e loi remna na'e prenu
 > ...

meaning (from context) "It is not the case that what is relevant is
people that are other-than-human and it is not the case that what is
relevant is humans that are other-than-people."

I found this very odd and went and checked the negation paper.  It seems
to be correct.  But this got me to thinking (always a dangerous
thing...)

Suppose {le cukta} consists of {le xunre cukta} and {le nukni cukta}
(each of which are just one book).  Consider

        mi jbera le cukta .i na go'i

and

        mi jbera le xunre cukte .e le nukni cukta .i na go'i


The second sentence of the first one expands to {mi na jbera le cukta}:
"It is not the case that I borrow the books"--so I might borrow one of
the two.  But the second one expands to {mi na jbera le xunre cukta .ije
mi na jbera le nukni cukti}:  so I don't borrow either of the books.

I find this very counterintuitive.  What, then, is the meaning of {le
cukta} in terms of {le xunre cukta} and {le nukni cukta}?

And is it really true that {na go'i} is sometimes stronger than a direct
negation of the statement just made?

Please tell me I'm misinterpreting something.

.uanaisai mu'o mi'e. dilyn.