Imaginary Journeys

[Glyn Gowing <querist@BIX.COM>]

I just finished reading Imaginary Journeys and the Negation papers, and
i want to say that they are both brilliant.  They've clarified many matters
which the draft text did not cover.

I believe i _may_ have found an error or two in the Imaginary Journeys paper:

p 15:
 example 21.10 reads: la .artr. pu je'i ba nolraitru

 je'i is defined in my cmavo list as the /tanru/ afterthought question
  connector.  Maybe i'm missing something here, but wouldn't ji make
  more sense here?

Also, in the proposed replies:

 je is listed to indicate 'both' (makes sense)

 The next two, however, seem reversed:  in the paper they read:
 naje  'the former'   and jenai  'the latter'

 If i understand the conjunctions correctly, it appears that those two
 were somehow reversed, since   x naje y  is like (not x) je y
 and x jenai y is like x and (not y).

mi'e glyn. co'o