On 2021-01-13 17:16, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org wrote:
No, these have interpretations that are different, based on how {na} and {na'e} are different. Both statements are however affirmative.Jacob Thomas Errington <jake@mail.jerrington.me> writes:{mi viska lo na nanmu} is an affirmative statement, that I see something that satisfies (the negative) {na nanmu}.By your interpretation, would the following two bridi mean the same thing? .i mi viska lo na nanmu .i mi viska lo na'e nanmu They'd both be saying that you see something other than a man.
For example, {lo karce na nanmu} seems pretty reasonable. {lo karce cu na'e nanmu} on the other hand is much stranger. {na'e} is a scalar negation, so we have to imagine some scale on which to put "nanmu" and then imagine what the opposite of that is. So maybe it means something more like "unmasculine" as opposed to plainly "not a man".
So if I said, {mi viska lo na nanmu} that just means I saw something that is not a man. Maybe a car, or a dog, or a chair. But if I said {mi viska lo na'e nanmu}, I think the interpretation would be that I saw someone who appears unmasculine in some way.
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/45079bb5-8d9c-982a-1dc9-c4c993cf3262%40mail.jerrington.me.