From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:54:01 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 9255 invoked from network); 24 Sep 1997 14:05:35 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 24 Sep 1997 14:05:35 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.2156E8AC@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:05:24 +0100
Date:         Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:02:27 BST
Reply-To:     Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: RV: na'e entails na?
X-To:         LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 486
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <4b4D7lK8VMD.A.3n.J20kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

> (2) If na`e doesn't entail na: How to say something equivlant to
>     na`e + na?

This is dead easy:

    .i .abu by. cy. na broda .ije na'ego'i

and go'i != broda because broda is false.

> (1) If na`e entails na: How to say something equivlant to na`e
>    but not entailing na?

I see what you mean, it is extremely difficult to formulate something
eliminating the extra condition.  However, how often would one want to say
such a thing (pragmatics as you say)?

ni'oco'omi'e dn.