Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t5efN-0000ZOC; Wed, 18 Oct 95 22:00 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 416A887F ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 21:00:44 +0100 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: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 666 Lines: 28 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.