From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:55 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 17064 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1997 21:21:56 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 25 Sep 1997 21:21:56 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <1.410D541D@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 23:21:45 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:26:21 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 648 Lines: 18 Message-ID: la .and. cusku di'e > la xorxes. cusku di'e > > Ok, once again I have been persuaded by And to change my > > mind. My position now is that na'e by itself does not entail na. > > It only does so when the selbri in question partitions its domain > > into exclusive regions (I try to explain what I mean by this below). > I am happy to go along with this as the final verdict on > {na`e}, but I do note that now that Don has brought "na ... po`o" > into the arena the necessity of that verdict may be > diminished. mi go'i -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban