From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:53:46 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 11920 invoked from network); 16 Sep 1997 01:08:16 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 16 Sep 1997 01:08:16 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <3.36AC4A65@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Tue, 16 Sep 1997 3:08:04 +0100 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:27:37 -0300 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: negated nitcu X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199709150207.UAA22182@indra.com> Content-Length: 1088 Lines: 27 Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > 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. It's clearer to me to think about this without the negation first: "I need a dinosaur to eat me up" still could have two meanings: that I need to be eaten by a dinosaur, or that I need a dinosaur if I want to be eaten up. In the first case, it's the eating that's needed, not the dinosaur, so that should be the x2: mi nitcu lenu lo banlyrespa cu citka mi I need to be eaten (by a dinosaur) In the second case, it's the dinosaur that's needed: mi nitcu lo banlyrespa lenu citka mi I need a dinosaur (in order to be eaten) Negate either one the same way; mi NA nitcu ... Although I wonder if I need a "tu'a" before "lo banlyrespa" in the second sentence, since it's an opaque reference... I always forget how we came out on that. co'o mi'e kris