Message-Id: <199709252237.RAA22577@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: John Cowan Date: Thu Sep 25 17:38:01 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0015 Content-Length: 1058 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Sep 25 17:38:01 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU la .and. cusku di'e (As it stands, it looks to me as if it groups as > > po`o(na (fraso (selgu`e))) > > because don't UI bind to the previous word? - But if so you can > change it to "na fraso po`o selgu`e".) Just so. > I express doubts because although I've not checked in the Book > whether John invented some proper grammar for po`o, I remember > when it was introduced amid a great fog of illogicality and > confusion about "only" - the debate was "solved" by introducing > a word in UI (i.e. with pretty much vague semantics) glossed > as "only". It means "There is no parallel example which differs only in the object to which po'o is attached." > Specifically, we need to be sure that "na broda po`o" does NOT > entail "na broda". Interactions between attitudinals and (logical) negation are fuzzy things. Does .ei mi na klama mean that I am not obliged to come, or that I am obliged not to come, or what? -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban