From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:53:36 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 22686 invoked from network); 17 Sep 1997 14:13:11 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 17 Sep 1997 14:13:11 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <15.08845893@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 16:13:00 +0100
Date:         Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:48:17 BST
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: negated nitcu
To:         LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
Content-Length: 393
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <BLk92t9QzwC.A.Ig.w10kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

> > What about "na'e nitcu"?

> Isn't this {mi na nitcu lenu le resprdainysar mi citka}?

"na" does not claim that there exists any relationship between the sumti and
can be interpreted as "it is false that".  "na'e" means other-than and
asserts that there is a relationship between the sumti but it is not the
particular selbri (in this case 'need').  A subtle difference.

ni'o co'imi'e dn.