Re: RV: na'e entails na?

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

la .and. cusku di'e
 
> la xorxes. cusku di'e
> > Ok, once again I have been persuaded by And to change my
> > mind. My position now is that na'e by itself does not entail na.
> > It only does so when the selbri in question partitions its domain
> > into exclusive regions (I try to explain what I mean by this below).

> I am happy to go along with this as the final verdict on
> {na`e}, but I do note that now that Don has brought "na ... po`o"
> into the arena the necessity of that verdict may be
> diminished.

mi go'i

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