Message-Id: <199709241410.JAA16375@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Date: Wed Sep 24 09:10:53 1997
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?
To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 520
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Sep 24 09:10:53 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

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