Chris Bogart wrote:
> [Y]our definition (that na'e entails
> na), plus your claim (that any set of arguments
> have *some* relationship)
> together imply that na'e will be logically
> equivalent to na.
But not all relationships are relevant, only those
that are reasonable scalar alternatives to the one
denied.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
e'osai ko sarji la lojban