From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:53:53 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 410 invoked from network); 19 Sep 1997 09:57:53 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 19 Sep 1997 09:57:53 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <4.B3F45411@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:57:44 +0100
Date:         Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:07:54 BST
Reply-To:     Don Wiggins <dwiggins@ELF.BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Don Wiggins <dwiggins@ELF.BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: negated nitcu
X-To:         LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 470
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <rBfcsiGo9PJ.A.Al.B20kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

cu'u la .and.
> > {mi na'e nitcu ko'a} implies that {mi na nitcu ko'a} is true.
> It doesn't. At best in certain contexts it pragmatically
> implicates that.

cu'u la lojbab.
> I  believe that the negation chapter clearly states that scalar negation
> entails contradictory negation AND goes beyond it in stating that some
> other relationship is true.

I agree with lojbab on this point.  Certainly, it makes sense to me that
"na'e" would imply "na".

ni'oco'omi'e dn.