From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Dec 17 05:58:54 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:58:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LCwvO-0000DF-CF for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:58:54 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.241]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LCwvM-0000Ct-1z for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:58:54 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so4675636rvf.46 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:58:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=lUEVCPtkrgO2GD/wtNVuBSvL7PwowBpyz+b5+YFHEWU=; b=aERf8kMff9Z2U11WBV8VO9uYSOx+Bd7Iz6qpxJX5gku2r44OZAhrDVW+8xIGVV/l9M dYU1+L6cK0xjYF9vTdEOMMoZCTrCv+uswMJkn9hlC9dQi/p4S+cHr0XGyWe0fY3CzT03 rgMyufeKE2vmoMalddaH2z+z89xjZiFh2yShQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=SzMrd43NzBZ0qbBljAc+945ohywu2ZjhOmUCRRjI8iGg1qn4wNQ7npcam6qf0CQZgN n1Y0suM+UJtISV8ac22AbZza3Mnrid8MqpsTp8IRvxb5TcUo+n3PsuAjPww95oOColnl uu9KQM7Ue4MSVxht6WXhHwA/TjVzAtl7QPvFU= Received: by 10.141.115.16 with SMTP id s16mr421922rvm.50.1229522331271; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:58:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:58:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560812170558j2c6f8e2bn9ba0b76db7e394d7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:58:51 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <70697fa40812152124u39a177a2hc52d604e9a30e469@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812160908j49f6d818y1fdcdf21bfddfb28@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812161137u6919c05cyf5958e9949ccfaf7@mail.gmail.com> <200812161859.52969.phma@phma.optus.nu> <925d17560812161637y2caa5a41i32372fc376cf603a@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812170455k54431b6tfe69c2f528bed595@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812170521l25cd32bar964ae19c64a6c2d8@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15107 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Daniel Brockman wrote: > > Spontaneous thoughts: Since {su'o da broda gi'e na brode} ought (?) to > mean {su'o da broda gi'e nai brode}, then {su'o da na broda gi'e brode} > ought to mean {su'o da broda na gi'e brode}. I think (though I could be wrong) that everybody agrees with that. The question is how does the scope of {na} work (in any of those versions) with respect to the scope of {su'o}. In other words: (1) su'o da na broda gi'u brode (2) su'o da na broda Do (1) and (2) have the same truth value? mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.