Subject: Re: [lojban] Interaction of SE and NAhE

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:56:30 PDT

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