Message-Id: <199511061738.MAA25492@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Mon, 6 Nov 1995 16:35:27 GMT
Reply-To: Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Qs: VhVhV & PAPAMEI &c.
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

coi. .and.

> It's so long since I wrote this that I was about to deny being its
> author, all memory of it having escaped me for a while. How come
> you send your message on October 18 and it arrives here 3 November?
> And youAre sending it from bt.co.uk!

Yes, I am, but sometimes I wonder myself with all my mail problems :-(

> > > (3) Given that (i-ii) are synonymous ("Not every person's a man")
> > > i.    na nanmu fa ro prenu
> > > ii.   ro prenu cu na nanmu
> > >       ["Every person is not a man" = {ro prenu na ku nanmu}]
> > Surely this is saying that all people are not men, that is there does not
> > exist a person who is a man. :-)

> I say all this in the belief that there is an official rule that {na}
> as "selbri tcita" has wide scope over the rest of the bridi. (But I
> reckon I got that from Jorge, and his rules aren't always official,
> though when they're not official they're rational, and sometimes they're
> both. "Official" roughly means {cuu la djon cauan}, zoho.)

Yes, you're right again ;-)  This was the first sentence I had seen that
used "na" and to say the least it is very shocking the way in which lojban
implements negation.  Something that is so radically different from
what I expected takes a bit of getting used to.

co'o mi'e dn.