From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:29 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 16050 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1997 16:19:41 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 25 Sep 1997 16:19:40 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <11.076C00E9@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:19:30 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:04:03 GMT+0 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1474 Lines: 31 Message-ID: Geoff: > > For example, everyone is either citizen of France or citizen of > > some other country. [NB INCLUSIVE OR] I want to describe > > the latter group as "na`e fraso zei selgugde" [I'm taking x1 of > > selgugde to be a citizen]. But since for example someone can be a > > citizen of both France and Britain, "na`e fraso zei selgugde" > > would not work if it entails "na fraso zei selgugde". "na fraso > > ..." gives me everyone who isn't French, whereas I want > > everyone who is a citizen of a country other than France. > > For that I would like to use "na`e fraso", but will not be > > able to if everyone bar me gets their way! > > Why not just use "drata"? Surely examples like this are part of what it's > meant for. Maybe: try to convince me. Suppose a couple are lying in bed discussing what kind of hankypanky they want to get up to, e.g. (a) spondoogling, (b) frothspeasing, (c) urxing, or [INC OR] (d) suppigulation. One says to the other "I would very much enjoy that you na`e suppigulate me", which would mean "I would enjoy that you spondoogle me and I would enjoy that you frothspease me and I would enjoy that you urx me". Now presumably you are proposing that one should say "I would very much enjoy that you drata suppigulate me", but you will surely concede that this tanru is susceptible to a far greater variety of interpretations than the na`e version would be. Therefore if this is your suggestion, I don't find it very satisfactory. --And