From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:39 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 17077 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1997 21:22:19 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 25 Sep 1997 21:22:19 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <10.4E6C681A@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 23:22:08 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 16:25:02 -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: 1058 Lines: 35 Message-ID: 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