From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Tue Nov 02 14:10:30 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 5923 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2004 22:10:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Nov 2004 22:10:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Nov 2004 22:10:29 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CP6r1-0001LR-4i for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:10:15 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CP6q2-0001KP-8u; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:09:14 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:09:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from web41907.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.158]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CP6pq-0001Ig-Ku for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:09:02 -0800 Message-ID: <20041102220828.47532.qmail@web41907.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.45.146.138] by web41907.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:08:28 PST Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:08:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20041102215029.GP2858@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 8916 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: na scope. Again. X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23322 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > > > > (1) mi ge na nelci gi djica > > > > (2) mi ge na nelci gi na djica > > > > (3) mi na ge nelci gi djica > > I don't see a semantic difference between (2) and (3); am I missing > something? (2) says I don't do either of them, (3) says I don't do both, i.e. in (3) I may do one or none, but not both. (2) is equivalent to: (2') mi na ga nelci gi djica and (3) is equivalent to: (3') mi ga na nelci gi na djica > > > {mi naku nelci gi'e djica} would still be (3) though, right? > > > > Right. And {mi nelci na gi'e djica} is unambiguously (1). > > And {mi nelci na gi'e nai djica} is unambiguously (2). Yes. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com