Message-ID: <34219226.82C@locke.ccil.org> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:42:14 -0400 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lojban List Subject: Re: na'e References: <199709181816.NAA04697@locke.ccil.org> <342191FA.58B1@locke.ccil.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 717 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Sep 18 16:42:14 1997 X-From-Space-Address: - la .and. cusku di'e > What I mean is that if you only know {mi na`e nitcu ko`a} then > you don't know whether {mi nitcu ko`a} is true. > > > {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. But certainly it doesn't logically. Unless, > that is, a stipulation has been added to the refgram such > that na`e and to`e are taken to *entail* na. And later points out that the refgram is silent on this point. My personal, non-official opinion is that na'e broda does not entail na broda, but it may suggest it; i.e. And is probably right. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban