From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Sep 30 12:58:59 2002
Return-Path: <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 30 Sep 2002 19:58:59 -0000
Received: (qmail 80094 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 19:58:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
  by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Sep 2002 19:58:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-13.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.113)
  by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 19:58:58 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-149.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.149])
  by mailbox-13.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
  id D81983D17D; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:58:55 +0200 (DST)
To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Cc: "lojban" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] LOI PRENU GO PA MEI GI KA'E NAI TE JINGA?
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:00:33 +0100
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMKEMIGJAA.a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <200209301954.PAA24895@mail2.reutershealth.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin

John:
> And Rosta scripsit:
> 
> > Is {ka'e nai} not standard Lojban for "cannot"? The meaning I intended
> > was "is a unity iff cannot be defeated" -- makes a stronger claim than
> > the original, but not inappropriately so. That is, the meaning is
> > "go pa mei gi na ka'e te jinga".
> 
> No, ka'enai is ungrammatical. But it so happens that "ka'e na" will work,
> since tenses and NAs can be interchanged.

True, & in fact I'd thought of that but decided that it was a bit
hypocritical of me to rely on this rule only a couple of days after
advocating shunning it...

--And.