From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU  Sat Mar  6 22:53:45 2010
Return-Path: <LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Received: (qmail 18177 invoked from network); 26 Sep 1997 02:50:46 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6)
  by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 26 Sep 1997 02:50:46 -0000
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.317E2FA8@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 26 Sep 1997 4:50:36 +0100
Date:         Sun, 21 Sep 1997 07:36:30 -0300
Reply-To:     JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      ei, einai
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 846
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <IjLawHxgUnG.A.3i.510kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

cu'u la djan
> Does
>
>        .ei mi na klama
>
>mean that I am not obliged to come, or that I am obliged not
>to come, or what?

Surely it's the second!  We have the following possibilities:


        ei mi klama
        I must come.

        ei mi na klama
        I must not come.

        einai mi klama
        I don't have to come.
        (I may not come.)

        einai mi na klama
        I don't have to not come.
        (I may come.)

Unfortunately "einai" is glossed as "freedom" in the cmavo list,
which would reverse the meaning of last two. "Freedom to do
something" is not the same as "non-obligation to do something",
but rather it is "non-obligation to NOT do something". I don't
think that the "nai" of "einai" should have this double negative
implication, so I propose to fix the gloss in the cmavo list.

co'o mi'e xorxes