From pycyn@aol.com Wed Oct 11 06:56:40 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 11 Oct 2000 13:56:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 29006 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2000 13:56:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Oct 2000 13:56:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.3) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Oct 2000 13:56:39 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.26.) id a.b9.77ec9a1 (1840) for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:56:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:56:34 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] na nei To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 4539 In a message dated 00-10-11 06:50:54 EDT, you write: << s the sentence "na nei" an Epimenides paradox? At first glance, it seems to mean "this sentence is false". But, I remember reading somewhere in the grammar that double negatives don't cancel each other out - they reinforce each other. Is this correct? >> Well, it's not clear that {na nei} *is* a sentence, since the {nei} has no referent to repeat; I don't think it is intended to be self- referential. On the other hand, as you would expect in a logical language, double negations do cancel out rather than reinforce (I am not clear where the double negation comes in here, but that goes pack to point one.)