Date:         Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:53:32 -0300
Reply-To:     "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: Lojban dictionary program?
To:           Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Message-ID: <909842015.1127362.0@listserv.cuny.edu>
Content-Length: 1473
Lines: 36


la robin cusku di'e
>Hmm. If I have understand this correctly ....
>
>le vlacku na vasru piso'e lei mi valsi
>It-is-not-the-case-that that-which-I term dictionary contains many-of
>the-mass-of-that-which-I-term my words
>
>could mean that there is in fact no dictionary, or that there is a dictio=
>nary
>but it does not containa ny of my words at all, or even that it it has no=
> words
>in it whatsoever (e.g. if someone has started to write a dictionary but o=
>nly
>got as far as the title page).

No, that's not what I meant. If you talk about {le vlacku} you are assuming
that there really is something that you call a vlacku.

My comment was about the use of {na} with {ki'u}.
{na broda ki'u ko'a} does NOT mean "not X, because Y". It means
"not (X because Y)".  So you were saying that it is not the case that
the ungrammatical nature of your words is the reason for their
being in the dictionary, possibly something else is the reason
for their being there.
{na} negates the whole bridi, including the because-clause, which
is different from what happens with English "not".

co'o mi'e xorxes