Message-Id: <199709252235.RAA22411@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: John Cowan Date: Thu Sep 25 17:35:53 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Content-Length: 648 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Sep 25 17:35:53 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU 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