Message-Id: <199709251740.MAA11203@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Date: Thu Sep 25 12:40:47 1997
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: RV: na'e entails na?
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1111
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Sep 25 12:40:47 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Lojbab:
> And:
> >Before it gets settled by consensus-of-everyone-except-me, can
> >we see how the following things can be said:
> >
> >(1) If na`e entails na: How to say something equivlant to na`e
> >    but not entailing na?
>
> Not having kept up, I would require an example of what might be equivalent to
> na'e that should not entail na in order to tackle this.

I've given two in earlier messages: one about being a
na`e fraso selgugde, and the other about what activities one
wants to engage in with one's bedpartner.

> The only alternative
> I can think of would be an aorist-like

why "aorist-like"?

> predicate "I claim a different
> relationship from broda pertains, but not necessarily denying broda".
> For this, I suggest that "bu'a",

Two drawbacks: (i) irksome longwindedness, especially given that
na`e was invented for exactly the purpose I am proposing, and
(ii) merely quantifying over selbri fails to express the notion
of "relevant scale" that na`e does - one would need a way of
quantifying over "relevant selbri" (which could be done by some
new cmavo or other, I suppose...).

--And