Message-Id: <199412160054.AA23835@nfs1.digex.net>
Date:         Thu, 15 Dec 1994 21:47:33 +0200
Reply-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Subject:      Re: Plural
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

la djan. cusku di'e
Date:         Thu, 15 Dec 1994 11:42:45 -0500
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: plural
[...]
> >
> > Veijo corroborated:
> >
> > >   If I remember correctly, {go'i} doesn't replicate the {na}, so
> > >  {na go'i} just repeats the negation.
> >
> >
> > I don't see anything else on the thread.
>
> Well, you are right, but you are drawing the wrong conclusions.  Specifically,
> Veijo's remark that "{go'i} doesn't replicate the {na}" is incorrect.
> A bare "go'i" without any NA ("na" or "ja'a") replicates any "na" in the
> referent, but if an explicit NA is present before the "go'i", it overrides
> any NA in the referent.  Thus:

  Just my too careless use of English. What I meant at the time was
  that {go'i} doesn't replicate {na} so as to result in two {na}s
  in a row :-) when you say {na go'i} after a bridi with {na} :-)

  {go'i} carries with itself the explicit or implicit NA from the
  referent. This implicitly carried NA can be overridden with an
  explicit NA which then will be carried on instead of the original
  one. You could think that this implicit/explicit NA occupies a
  virtual sumti place which can filled and refilled like any normal
  sumti place in a GOhA bridi thus replacing the corresponding
  virtual sumti in the referent -- but only with another NA.


  co'o mi'e veion

---------------------------------
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.
---------------------------------