Chris Bogart wrote: > [Y]our definition (that na'e entails > na), plus your claim (that any set of arguments > have *some* relationship) > together imply that na'e will be logically > equivalent to na. But not all relationships are relevant, only those that are reasonable scalar alternatives to the one denied. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban