Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tCV4E-0000ZTC; Mon, 6 Nov 95 19:10 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id A62D37A5 ; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:10:42 +0100 Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 16:35:27 GMT Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: Re: Qs: VhVhV & PAPAMEI &c. To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1279 Lines: 28 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.