From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:53:38 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 28606 invoked from network); 18 Sep 1997 15:57:51 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 18 Sep 1997 15:57:51 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <12.D2383777@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:57:41 +0100
Date:         Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:56:29 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
X-To:         LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 669
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <ZMqR6pAT9lM.A.yg.y10kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

cu'u la .and.
> 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.
Either {mi nitcu ko'a} or {mi na nitcu ko'a} is a tautology and always true.
{mi na'e nitcu ko'a} implies that {mi na nitcu ko'a} is true.  The subtlety
lies in whether the speaker wishes to indicate that there is some sort of
relationship between the arguments or not.  Using "na" is the more
diluted than "na'e".  "to'e" for the polar opposite is much stronger than
"na'e" and gives a definitive relationship.  All of the above could be used
for the translation, but it shows the fine nuances that jbobau allows.

ni'oco'omi'e dn.