Re: [lojban] Interaction of SE and NAhE

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la ritcyd cusku di'e

> mi na'e se klama
> (I am other than a destination)
>
> mi se na'e klama
> (I am the destination of other than a go-er)

I don't think there is any difference between those
two, because {na'e} applies to the selbri, not only
to the first argument. {klama} and {se klama}
represent the same relationship, and {na'e} is the
negation of that relationship .

> Thinking about this problem, I've concluded that if
>
> mi broda ijo mi na'e brode
>
> then (broda) and (na'e brode) are constrained to have the same place
> structure.

I'm not sure why you would conclude that. For example,
this is true:

mi prenu ijo mi na'e klama

and {prenu} does not have the same place structure as {na'e
klama}. The sentence is true because I am a person and I'm
not going anywhere right now, not because there is any
causal connection between being a person and being a non-goer.
Logical connectives make no claims about causal connections.
I suspect what you meant was that if {mi broda ijo mi na'e
brode} were true in all possible worlds or under all possible
circumstances, then {broda} and {na'e brode} would be
constrained to have the same place structure. (In fact, they
would be constrained to mean the same thing, wouldn't they?)
But that is not how {ijo} works. All it does is say that either
both sentences are true, or both are false, here and now, not
in every possible world.

co'o mi'e xorxes


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com