From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:53:51 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 8927 invoked from network); 24 Sep 1997 12:55:41 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 24 Sep 1997 12:55:41 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <6.5E0373B5@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:55:31 +0100
Date:         Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:51:20 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: RV: na'e entails na?
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 520
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <PkkfSgvGe2F.A.gk._10kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

John:
> Chris Bogart wrote:
>
> > [Y]our definition (that na'e entails
> > na), plus your claim (that any set of arguments
> > have *some* relationship)
> > together imply that na'e will be logically
> > equivalent to na.
>
> But not all relationships are relevant, only those
> that are reasonable scalar alternatives to the one
> denied.

Is this merely pragmatics, or is one actually asserting,
by using na`e, that the relationship is relevant?
(i.e. "su`o broda poi relevant to di`u", or something
like that)

--And