Message-Id: <199709171727.MAA05670@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Date: Wed Sep 17 12:27:44 1997
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: negated nitcu
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 620
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Sep 17 12:27:44 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Don:
> > > What about "na'e nitcu"?
>
> > Isn't this {mi na nitcu lenu le resprdainysar mi citka}?
>
> "na" does not claim that there exists any relationship between the sumti and
> can be interpreted as "it is false that".  "na'e" means other-than and
> asserts that there is a relationship between the sumti but it is not the
> particular selbri (in this case 'need').  A subtle difference.

Not so subtle, because if {mi na`e nitcu ko`a} is true then either
{mi nitcu ko`a} or {mi na nitcu ko`a} can be true. So I think
Iain's rendering is better. Alternatively, {mi to`e nitcu} would
get the idea across too.

--And