Re: RV: na'e entails na?

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

la .and. cusku di'e

(As it stands, it looks to me as if it groups as
> 
>    po`o(na (fraso (selgu`e)))
> 
> because don't UI bind to the previous word? - But if so you can
> change it to "na fraso po`o selgu`e".)

Just so.

> I express doubts because although I've not checked in the Book
> whether John invented some proper grammar for po`o, I remember
> when it was introduced amid a great fog of illogicality and
> confusion about "only" - the debate was "solved" by introducing
> a word in UI (i.e. with pretty much vague semantics) glossed
> as "only".

It means "There is no parallel example which differs only
in the object to which po'o is attached."

> Specifically, we need to be sure that "na broda po`o" does NOT
> entail "na broda".

Interactions between attitudinals and (logical) negation
are fuzzy things.  Does

	.ei mi na klama

mean that I am not obliged to come, or that I am obliged not
to come, or what?
 
-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban