From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Dec 16 16:00:11 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:00:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LCjpj-0005kl-6O for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:00:11 -0800 Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LCjpd-0005hB-Dr for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:00:10 -0800 Received: from chausie ([71.75.215.96]) by cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20081216235956.SAPZ18921.cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com@chausie> for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:59:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chausie (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30843306 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:59:54 -0500 (EST) From: Pierre Abbat To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:59:52 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 References: <70697fa40812152124u39a177a2hc52d604e9a30e469@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812160908j49f6d818y1fdcdf21bfddfb28@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812161137u6919c05cyf5958e9949ccfaf7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <96f789a60812161137u6919c05cyf5958e9949ccfaf7@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812161859.52969.phma@phma.optus.nu> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 1103 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@phma.optus.nu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Tuesday 16 December 2008 14:37:57 Michael Turniansky wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:33 PM, paskal. kos > > > > wrote: > > > 2008/12/16 Jorge Llambías : > > >> ta na (sutra citka ro badna) > > >> That one did not quickly eat all bananas. > > > > > > "ta" isn't included? > > > > It depends who you ask. If you ask me, no. > > Contrariwise, I maintain that, with "na" rather than "naku", it does > include the "ta". As it says in the reference grammar, chapter 15, > section 2. I concede that it might create messes with su'o+gi'e > sentences. But that's what the grammar says. {na} just before the selbri (and tense markers, if any) is equivalent to {naku} at the beginning of the sentence (before the prenex, if any). Furthermore, {naku} is interpreted as if the selbri were at the end (i.e. its scope always includes the selbri). So {su'o da na renro lo cutci} is equivalent to {naku su'o da lo cutci cu renro}. Now consider {su'oda na renro lo cutci gi'e karnypre}. I'm going to try to transform it. If I do it wrong, please tell me. su'oda na renro lo cutci gi'e karnypre su'oda na renro lo cutci .ije su'oda karnypre naku su'oda lo cutci cu renro .ije su'oda karnypre noda naku lo cutci cu renro .ije su'oda karnypre If what you mean is "There is a journalist who doesn't throw a shoe", that's {su'oda renro lo cutci nagi'e karnypre}. All sumti are terms, but not all terms are sumti. {naku} is a term but not a sumti. Even though it's not a sumti, it can be the object of a preposition or {pe} (or any other GOI). So you can say weird things like {le gerku goi naku cu tavla le mlatu ba naku}. Pierre