From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:53:31 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 23207 invoked from network); 17 Sep 1997 16:13:56 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 17 Sep 1997 16:13:56 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <4.E6EC1E3A@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 17 Sep 1997 18:13:46 +0100
Date:         Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:06:37 GMT+0
Reply-To:     And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: negated nitcu
To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 620
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <w0spkXrGLWF.A.-d.r10kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Don:
> > > 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.

Not so subtle, because if {mi na`e nitcu ko`a} is true then either
{mi nitcu ko`a} or {mi na nitcu ko`a} can be true. So I think
Iain's rendering is better. Alternatively, {mi to`e nitcu} would
get the idea across too.

--And