From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:54:04 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 16078 invoked from network); 25 Sep 1997 16:25:34 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 25 Sep 1997 16:25:34 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <1.D9FD71F0@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:25:23 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:23:03 GMT+0 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Organization: University of Central Lancashire Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na? To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1111 Lines: 32 Message-ID: Lojbab: > And: > >Before it gets settled by consensus-of-everyone-except-me, can > >we see how the following things can be said: > > > >(1) If na`e entails na: How to say something equivlant to na`e > > but not entailing na? > > Not having kept up, I would require an example of what might be equivalent to > na'e that should not entail na in order to tackle this. I've given two in earlier messages: one about being a na`e fraso selgugde, and the other about what activities one wants to engage in with one's bedpartner. > The only alternative > I can think of would be an aorist-like why "aorist-like"? > predicate "I claim a different > relationship from broda pertains, but not necessarily denying broda". > For this, I suggest that "bu'a", Two drawbacks: (i) irksome longwindedness, especially given that na`e was invented for exactly the purpose I am proposing, and (ii) merely quantifying over selbri fails to express the notion of "relevant scale" that na`e does - one would need a way of quantifying over "relevant selbri" (which could be done by some new cmavo or other, I suppose...). --And