Message-Id: <199709251737.MAA11140@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: And Rosta Date: Thu Sep 25 12:37:46 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: ja`a/na go`i X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 865 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Sep 25 12:37:46 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Don: > la .and cusku di'e > > I know that "na broda .ije ja`a go`i" is defined as a contradiction > > rather than a tautology, because "ja`a" substitutes for "na" > > rather than taking "na broda" within its scope. > > I didn't know that "na broda .ije ja`a go`i" is defined as a contradiction. > Does this mean that "go'i" = "broda" in this case? In this example, "go`i" = "na broda", "na go`i" = "na broda", and "ja`a go`i" = "broda". So it's not as bad as you feared. This is from memory of a Woldemarian pronouncement when the issue was discussed on Lojban list some time in the last 3 or 4 years. It must be in the Book somewhere, but I'm not sure where to look it up. [BTW, it wd be good in the longrun if one could search the online grammar according to selma`o. So I could ask for NA + GO`A and get directed to passages discussing both of these.] --And