Re: na'e

[John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>]

la .and. cusku di'e

> What I mean is that if you only know {mi na`e nitcu ko`a} then
> you don't know whether {mi nitcu ko`a} is true.
>
> > {mi na'e nitcu ko'a} implies that {mi na nitcu ko'a} is true.
>
> It doesn't. At best in certain contexts it pragmatically
> implicates that. But certainly it doesn't logically. Unless,
> that is, a stipulation has been added to the refgram such
> that na`e and to`e are taken to *entail* na.

And later points out that the refgram is silent on this point.
My personal, non-official opinion is that na'e broda does not
entail na broda, but it may suggest it; i.e. And is probably right.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban