From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:53 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 18269 invoked from network); 16 Sep 1997 21:22:15 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 16 Sep 1997 21:22:15 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <7.CE907113@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:22:04 +0100 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:58:47 GMT Reply-To: ia@stryx.demon.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: Iain Alexander Subject: Re: negated nitcu X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 734 Lines: 17 Message-ID: In message <874289225.1417994.0@listserv.cuny.edu> shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU writes: [snip 1] [2] > The other negation, in "I don't need a dinosaur to eat me up," is a bit > different. It's not so much that I can get it done without the dinosaur, > but that I don't need to get eaten up, period. The negation is more on the > necessity of the action in the first place. [snip] > How about the second? It likely is best translated with a different selbri > than nitcu, eh? Or is there a negation that makes sense for it? Hmm. > What about "na'e nitcu"? Isn't this {mi na nitcu lenu le resprdainysar mi citka}? -- Iain Alexander PGP 1024-bit key id B501A0AD ia@stryx.demon.co.uk I.Alexander@bsn0106.wins.icl.co.uk