From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Thu Sep 25 07:23:02 1997
Message-Id: <199709251223.HAA02293@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Thu Sep 25 07:23:02 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: 0015
Content-Length:  591


la .and cusku di'e
> I know that "na broda .ije ja`a go`i" is defined as a contradiction
> rather than a tautology, because "ja`a" substitutes for "na"
> rather than taking "na broda" within its scope.

I didn't know that "na broda .ije ja`a go`i" is defined as a contradiction.
Does this mean that "go'i" = "broda" in this case?

> But is the
> same true of NA`E? (I think you're right, but want confirmation.)

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

This would only be true if "go'i" = "broda", but I'm not sure that it is.  Very
confusing.

ni'oco'omi'e dn.