From lojban+bncCNTPpI2KGxDOxKXnBBoE1SSdwA@googlegroups.com Sun Nov 21 10:18:07 2010 Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PKEUD-0002O8-RO; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:18:06 -0800 Received: by pzk26 with SMTP id 26sf500689pzk.16 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:17:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:x-authority-analysis:x-cloudmark-score :x-originating-ip:received:received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:message-id:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; bh=wUqzFAHAGzZBUkMnc/WoAOXGw0c0Jl9kCnoQRmSam/k=; b=hoNifef44gFT2z3ZoeBswbs088iigMY2qJrovb7smaH+xkvneRam6uOU1yjkEoe/PS ueijItuYlvHYRObHYhbe8pXfC5chl4Lc6YTUpwX814/Uhq+iaA04W8mZIwEzIAIqCGjM XzDeeXRfWina9nICcUwqLASM/+1rW6i4opKSo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-authority-analysis:x-cloudmark-score :x-originating-ip:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:message-id:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-disposition; b=BQmCtseBPD/rKhh2yN9Z4e6bCBOVs0iFkfRTvZyDhi2FPfWCOVp8BSGhRPTBTdMB57 6Xatd5qH+gG5zuxbCc/XLsOeDSysPyopoD+FxmKICVCBaWuj+OzygH9ZtW04FnJE4yRJ dvUXtU/tLszerInPqxzzME/d93Ase/v7zSARg= Received: by 10.142.150.13 with SMTP id x13mr193312wfd.41.1290363470476; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:17:50 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.6.9 with SMTP id 9ls7039662wff.3.p; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.230.14 with SMTP id c14mr822247wfh.16.1290363468473; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.230.14 with SMTP id c14mr822246wfh.16.1290363468442; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com [75.180.132.122]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n6si6178760wfl.7.2010.11.21.10.17.48; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 10:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 75.180.132.122 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) client-ip=75.180.132.122; X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=3jtQBdTzPyV+fq4oCU/u8ZPrJJGN11HvhaDVxyWhycI= c=1 sm=0 a=-4UTe9a0QYIA:10 a=wPDyFdB5xvgA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=9o99xeNKNPYSmM5t9x5+TQ==:17 a=kDPDoJPaw3jHmBtTkBEA:9 a=Cj-BjIzhKJ8kvs3uZZgVnzP0VbIA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=9o99xeNKNPYSmM5t9x5+TQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 75.176.118.168 Received: from [75.176.118.168] ([75.176.118.168:44588] helo=chausie) by cdptpa-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id B8/A3-02631-A4269EC4; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:17:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4381C13397 for ; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:17:46 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Abbat To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Does {na nei} work like that? Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:17:39 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201011211317.42297.phma@phma.optus.nu> X-Original-Sender: phma@phma.optus.nu X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 75.180.132.122 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of phma@phma.optus.nu) smtp.mail=phma@phma.optus.nu Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline On Saturday 20 November 2010 16:06:36 ianek wrote: > coi > {na nei} should work like {na go'i}. According to LLC 15.9, {na} > replaces previous negation, not negates it. Just like this: > A: i le vi karce na crino > B: i na go'i > > A: this car isn't green > B: it isn't > > So {na nei} should mean "this negative statement is indeed true", or > I'm awfully wrong. That's what I think too. What happens, though, when you have several {na} or {ja'a} in front of a selbri? I think the right way to say "this statement is false" is "dei jitfa". Pierre -- I believe in Yellow when I'm in Sweden and in Black when I'm in Wales. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.