From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:53:45 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 30482 invoked from network); 23 Sep 1997 18:28:57 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 23 Sep 1997 18:28:57 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <10.A9722B36@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 23 Sep 1997 20:13:46 +0100
Date:         Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:51:02 -0400
Reply-To:     John Cowan <cowan@DRV.CBC.COM>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         John Cowan <cowan@DRV.CBC.COM>
Organization: Lojban Peripheral
Subject:      Re: RV: na'e entails na?
X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 439
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <-FDuihlW3PL.A.Aj.510kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Chris Bogart wrote:

> [Y]our definition (that na'e entails
> na), plus your claim (that any set of arguments
> have *some* relationship)
> together imply that na'e will be logically
> equivalent to na.

But not all relationships are relevant, only those
that are reasonable scalar alternatives to the one
denied.

--
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban