Re: not just

[Don Wiggins <dwiggins@BFSEC.BT.CO.UK>]

>>   indicates that the predication holds
>>  for X and that there is at least one other X' that is also true.

> po`onai. I thought it was you who came up with that.

In the same way that "na'e" implies "na" is unresolved, I wouldn't want to jump
 the gun on
the semantics of "po'onai".  Does the "nai" for "po'o" mean that the predication
 is false or
that there is a different predication that is true or both?  It is difficult to
 say what would be
best.

> One way is {ji'a}:
>                la djan ji'a cu pinxe le ckafi
>                Also John drinks coffee.
> That implies that someone else does.

That's pretty good.  I had only thought of "ji'a" as extending a previous
 prediction.
It certainly seems to make sense that removing the previous prediction "ji'a"
 would imply its
existence.  For a sumti, "ji'a" means:

    ji'a (f (x)) = f (x) ^ Ex': (x != x') ^ f (x')

which is spot on.

ni'oco'omi'e dn.