Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sBVAT-0009acC; Wed, 17 May 95 01:32 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0sBVAT-0009acC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 2E7C948B ; Wed, 17 May 1995 0:32:40 +0100
Date:         Tue, 16 May 1995 18:23:32 -0400
Reply-To:     "Dylan P. Thurston" <DPT@HUMA1.BITNET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "Dylan P. Thurston" <DPT@HUMA1.BITNET>
Subject:      TECH: Negation
X-To:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU, lojban@cuvmb.BITNET
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1276
Lines: 37

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.