Re: [lojban] lo'e and NAhEBO

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

And Rosta wrote:


> You're definitely wrong about that. I *think* (without checking refgram) 
> that {na'e bo le broda} = {lo na du be le broda}. 


Well, sort of, but na'e (with or without bo) always has some kind of
implicit scale (which can be made explicit with a sumtcita).  Thus
when I say that Fido is a non-horse, I imply that he is some
sort of animal, or perhaps a vehicle if I am thinking of horses
as primarily transportation tools, or even perhaps a tractor.
But if Fido is the concept "Osama bin Laden is in Afghanistan",
I would find it disturbing to be told that la faidos. cu na'e xirma,
since there is no plausible scale even remotely connecting one
with the other.

--
Not to perambulate             || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
   the corridors               || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose     || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
   in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel