Date:  Wed, 24 Sep 1997 01:45:05 -0500 (EST)
        Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:35:20 +1000 (EST)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:35:19 +1000 (EST)
From: HACKER G N <c9709244@drv.cbc.com>
To: John Cowan <cowan@scotty.sys.drv.cbc.com>
Cc: Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na?
In-Reply-To: <0EGZ00N6K4IV4Q@newcastle.edu.au>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.96.970924123307.27179C-100000@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 525
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Sep 24 01:45:11 1997
X-From-Space-Address: drv.cbc.com!c9709244@cbgate.cbc.com


On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, John Cowan wrote:

> JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS wrote:
> 
> > Could you give a sentence with your definition of na'e as
> > a selbri modifier that says something useful?
> 
> No.  I retract my arguments, and move to the Jorge/lojbab
> camp.

Yes, I go to the Jorge/lojbab camp too, subject to your proviso that the
positive statement implied by "na'e" must be related to the negative
statement along some intelligible scale. (If it weren't, one wouldn't be
able to make much sense of "to'e", for example.)