Envelope-to: lojban-list-archive@lojban.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 09:07:23 -0800
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jake@mail.jerrington.me designates 2001:41d0:2:863f:: as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:41d0:2:863f::;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: {zo'e}
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <bad4709c-1c05-d4f7-f56c-78089950fa4f@gmail.com>
 <2914956.R1SSoXq267@puma>
 <CAKOEKkRpASKLMuhNdHnFwWUhBX+nw2tBWO=Pt9-Ny6zyaio_pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3057250.gkAYTAapcS@puma> <86v9djg26p.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <e0a16e64-8f52-e576-af76-f895ff5ab220@gmail.com>
 <517f4985-4f82-495b-9b07-e03210186403n@googlegroups.com>
 <86wnwwcl2t.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <b5b761ef-45fb-12d2-5592-73745736b33f@mail.jerrington.me>
 <86sg7ehrgv.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <65e161f6-fda1-241f-4cf9-fd5ebd4a1e87@mail.jerrington.me>
 <86o8hs5vq0.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
From: Jacob Thomas Errington <jake@mail.jerrington.me>
Message-ID: <45079bb5-8d9c-982a-1dc9-c4c993cf3262@mail.jerrington.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <86o8hs5vq0.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-US
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:21:04 GMT
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.8
X-Spam_score_int: -27
X-Spam_bar: --

On 2021-01-13 17:16, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org wrote:
> Jacob Thomas Errington <jake@mail.jerrington.me> writes:
>
>>  =C2=A0 {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.
>
No, these have interpretations that are different, based on how {na} and=20
{na'e} are different. Both statements are however affirmative.

For example, {lo karce na nanmu} seems pretty reasonable. {lo karce cu=20
na'e nanmu} on the other hand is much stranger. {na'e} is a scalar=20
negation, so we have to imagine some scale on which to put "nanmu" and=20
then imagine what the opposite of that is. So maybe it means something=20
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=20
that is not a man. Maybe a car, or a dog, or a chair. But if I said {mi=20
viska lo na'e nanmu}, I think the interpretation would be that I saw=20
someone who appears unmasculine in some way.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--=20
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 e=
mail 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.