From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Wed Sep 24 10:21:23 1997
Message-Id: <199709241520.KAA18486@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Wed Sep 24 10:21:23 1997
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?
To:         LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  507


> (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.