From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Nov 02 14:09:11 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:09:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web41907.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.158])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CP6pq-0001Ig-Ku
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:09:02 -0800
Message-ID: <20041102220828.47532.qmail@web41907.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.45.146.138] by web41907.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:08:28 PST
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:08:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: [lojban] Re: na scope.  Again.
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <20041102215029.GP2858@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 8916
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > (1) mi ge na nelci gi djica
> > > > (2) mi ge na nelci gi na djica
> > > > (3) mi na ge nelci gi djica
> 
> I don't see a semantic difference between (2) and (3); am I missing
> something?

(2) says I don't do either of them, (3) says I don't do both, i.e.
in (3) I may do one or none, but not both.

(2) is equivalent to:

(2') mi na ga nelci gi djica

and (3) is equivalent to:

(3') mi ga na nelci gi na djica 

> > > {mi naku nelci gi'e djica} would still be (3) though, right?
> > 
> > Right. And {mi nelci na gi'e djica} is unambiguously (1).
> 
> And {mi nelci na gi'e nai djica} is unambiguously (2).

Yes.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com