From - Thu Sep 25 16:25:02 1997 Message-ID: <342AC89E.693A@locke.ccil.org> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:25:02 -0400 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? References: <199709251757.MAA11860@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1056 la .and. cusku di'e (As it stands, it looks to me as if it groups as > > po`o(na (fraso (selgu`e))) > > because don't UI bind to the previous word? - But if so you can > change it to "na fraso po`o selgu`e".) Just so. > I express doubts because although I've not checked in the Book > whether John invented some proper grammar for po`o, I remember > when it was introduced amid a great fog of illogicality and > confusion about "only" - the debate was "solved" by introducing > a word in UI (i.e. with pretty much vague semantics) glossed > as "only". It means "There is no parallel example which differs only in the object to which po'o is attached." > Specifically, we need to be sure that "na broda po`o" does NOT > entail "na broda". Interactions between attitudinals and (logical) negation are fuzzy things. Does .ei mi na klama mean that I am not obliged to come, or that I am obliged not to come, or what? -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban