Re: plural

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la lojbab. pu cusku di'e

> >na go'i .i go'i .i go'i
> 
> >No I did not contradict myself.  "na" carried over as implicit to the go'i.
> >My son and I get into nago'i/ja'ago'i arguments all the time - one little
> >bit of Lojban he knows well.

la mark. cusku di'e

> Wait, no... I specifically remember from years back that "na go'i" in
> response to a negative jufra is *not* contradiction.  It confused me then,
> but I was told that it was important.  I'm confused; I'm going to find that
> reference... I could swear I recall it from John Cowan or something.  Is it
> tackled in the negation paper?  Will repost when I find what I meant.
> 
> ~mark
> 
> 
> Ah, here's *something*...  It's from Nick, in September 1992, in response
> to... hey, a post from me, in which I discussed his ckafybarja entry.  He
> had:

[text omitted]

> To which I said:
> 
>  Doesn't the {na go'i} *negate* the previous sentence, so that you're saying
>  "The climbing axes ... weren't symmetrical.  Which is not the case for the
>  objects hanging on the other walls..." --- i.e. they *were* symmetrical!
> 
> To which he replied:
> 
> >I might have to look up the negation paper for that. {go'i} doesn't replicate
> >all details of the previous jufra: it leaves out attitudinals, for example.
> >I don't know if it'd also leave out {na}. Actually, I doubt it, but seem
> >to recall that it did in the negation paper.
> 
> Veijo corroborated:
> 
> >   If I remember correctly, {go'i} doesn't replicate the {na}, so
> >   {na go'i} just repeats the negation.
> 
> 
> I don't see anything else on the thread.

Well, you are right, but you are drawing the wrong conclusions.  Specifically,
Veijo's remark that "{go'i} doesn't replicate the {na}" is incorrect.
A bare "go'i" without any NA ("na" or "ja'a") replicates any "na" in the
referent, but if an explicit NA is present before the "go'i", it overrides
any NA in the referent.  Thus:

	mi pu klama le zarci			mi na pu klama le zarci
	I went to the store.			I didn't go to the store.

can have the following responses ("OTC" = "on the contrary"):

	go'i = "Yes, you did."			go'i = "True, you didn't."
	na go'i = "No, you didn't."		na go'i = "True, you didn't."
	ja'a go'i = "Yes, you did."		ja'a go'i = "OTC, you did."

Therefore, "na go'i .i go'i .i go'i" and "na go'i .i na go'i .i na go'i"
mean the same thing, because the second and third "go'i"s pick up the
"na" from the first "go'i", which is in turn overriding any "na" in whatever
>its< referent may be.  From context, this is presumably a positive claim
of some sort.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.