Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id QAA14993 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:19:56 -0400 Message-Id: <199510182019.QAA14993@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 47336734 ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:03:00 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:20:18 BST Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: Re: Qs: VhVhV & PAPAMEI &c. To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 18 16:20:02 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU coi. .and. > (3) Given that (i-ii) are synonymous ("Not every person's a man") > > i. na nanmu fa ro prenu > ii. ro prenu cu na nanmu > > ["Every person is not a man" = {ro prenu na ku nanmu}] Surely this is saying that all people are not men, that is there does not exist a person who is a man. :-) Perhaps, .i na nanmu fa da poi prenu .i da poi prenu cu na nanmu > I'd have thought iii-iv shd also be synonymous > > iii. koa ba klama pu ku > iv. pu ku koa ba klama > > But according to the tense paper iii-iv differ. Is there a > rationale to this? As for your actual question - loi temci valsi cu mutce leka cfipu be mi co'o mi'e dn.