Date:  Tue, 14 Oct 1997 20:49:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710150149.UAA13993@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: HACKER G N <c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: HACKER G N <c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>
Subject:      Re: RV: na'e entails na?
X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <0EI2002SJ1XPPJ@newcastle.edu.au>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 833
Lines: 20

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, And Rosta wrote:

> Suppose a couple are lying in bed
> > > discussing what kind of hankypanky they want to get up to,
> > > e.g. (a) spondoogling, (b) frothspeasing, (c) urxing, or [INC OR]
> > > (d) suppigulation. One says to the other "I would very much
> > > enjoy that you na`e suppigulate me", which would mean
> > > "I would enjoy that you spondoogle me and I would enjoy that
> > > you frothspease me and I would enjoy that you urx me".
> >
> > No, that's not correct. If you na'e suppigulate someone, you could
> > EITHER
> > be spondoogling them, OR frothspeasing them OR urxing them.
>
> The disjunction is within the scope of "I would enjoy":
> "I would enjoy that you spondoogle or frothspease or urx me".

OK, upon rereading the sentence I can see how you meant that. :)

Geoff