Received: from mail-ye0-f192.google.com ([209.85.213.192]:49883)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncBCOZJTMR5YGRBHOGR2DAKGQE5LLHAQQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1ThR1Y-00064Z-ID; Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:29:30 -0800
Received: by mail-ye0-f192.google.com with SMTP id j12sf1056646yeg.19
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:29:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=P3b74WVDyaCci74To47kQ65bs1U193gl0KQ6zdENOeo=;
        b=l6FCHdXPPSH6UFFDYeZs7f7MPB0vAEd0paww6i6Vf59IVzjtDAzVS2GScp0kf+8FDs
         VOqkJthQIiJEP1+W8T7z5yidOwQiQypoO/07B4/Ofo3bVcHRSO/ifiNy1SIUAhSYEn12
         nxRRDTJBRpxorY8KV+8x+O7Jg+Nxd84VoNCCPXTaG9zpzB0FEpBeE9DuhLpFGAZsCxMr
         VXO3kJeFzBX+qE+yXFS6vcJC7H35rRyC6AUWSBDeI6CyriNSeU/VeFJlTnzVp1htjJs+
         XChYvOM3IPxkjYSR/3KWutz56HY6y279RluPs7EaiWjs17mOvU+K/hink5WMrfOyiaEN
         B2BA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=P3b74WVDyaCci74To47kQ65bs1U193gl0KQ6zdENOeo=;
        b=qOcIyboNuOhHN+UQEmNguYROnYAtPg/kuK4s3h2MBdv/ha0CpjZ+4LFGO7u9EUiSTh
         ZHetvjGdIdcIWaHcHJDOpsm+BvMoTYT1pChMXbL5hKAb1BOoC7Lkg4zswXgr1ImtEM29
         r1XUPq1E3p6JAsm/flYyxdule+45HVcXc6N+TFo8v4oOd5YD4GKQPwQzTJq870EI0A+O
         5R2t/QIJu69eLU2zbWhwMBcb7B0si5hSLSiL6H5g4fU0f2GFYHzwGk4GfWBa8gixoytq
         AGlpTo6UH2is18i0vFodN0AzbCCT29O9wgrx/Pk9eUY/ZqaKRw92vKb4Q0Vx+jyLkTeR
         S9bw==
Received: by 10.50.87.165 with SMTP id az5mr2144852igb.1.1354998557727;
        Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:29:17 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.155.166 with SMTP id vx6ls523615igb.36.canary; Sat, 08 Dec
 2012 12:29:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.66.77.34 with SMTP id p2mr2168248paw.30.1354998557170;
        Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:29:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.66.77.34 with SMTP id p2mr2168247paw.30.1354998557159;
        Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:29:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-da0-f44.google.com (mail-da0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bv9si2894429pab.1.2012.12.08.12.29.17
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:29:17 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.44;
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z20so724878dae.17
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:29:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.197.71 with SMTP id is7mr25747051pbc.79.1354998557058; Sat,
 08 Dec 2012 12:29:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.66.88.200 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Dec 2012 12:29:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20121208194909.GK30125@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <95cdbee4-7ddc-4f7d-bb48-4591b7c3d915@googlegroups.com>
	<50C10003.1080806@lojban.org>
	<5406c1d2-ee78-4b41-ab68-06b7cf99dce7@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2cyQEHTbnSkMnZBwZakreVSq4Q+_EdVQHmhv9Q8O5ao8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121208182108.GI30125@mercury.ccil.org>
	<CAO7tK2e3_rjxi5j7-T6r_ivVEbdFtehJpzeS3QMdRAMaCsFXKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20121208194909.GK30125@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 17:29:16 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2e3+6qWMWT85VJ+j3+n8dc0td0hpx2we+Nqz1MknCC1vA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.44 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en_US>
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:googlegroups-manage+972099695765+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /
Content-Length: 3272

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 4:49 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Jorge Llamb=EDas scripsit:
>
>> I don't think you can use "mi na'e klama le zarci" to affirm that you
>> are coming from the store. You can only use it to affirm that the
>> relationship between you and the store, whatever that relationship may
>> be, is other than "klama".
>
> Exactly, and what I am affirming (though not explicitly) is that the
> relationship is "se te klama".

But you can't use "na'e klama" to affirm that. "na'e klama" doesn't
mean "se te klama" even when they can both be true together.

> In English, if I ask "Are you going to
> the store", I may reply "I'm not *going* to the store", with sentential
> stress on "going".  This is "na'e", whereas "I'm not going to the store"
> without sentential stress may be "na'e" or "na", depending on context.
> (I don't know how you make this contrast in the Romance languages.)

Same way, that's just focus. If we use "ba'e" for focus, we could
distinguish "ba'e mi na klama le zarci" vs "mi na ba'e klama le zarci"
vs "mi na klama le ba'e zarci", indicating what part of the sentence
is what makes it false.

> This is clearer if we look at sumti scalar negation with "na'e bo".
> "mi klama na'e bo le zarci" definitely affirms that I went somewhere,
> it just wasn't the store.

Yes, just like "mi klama lo na me le zarci" does. "na'e bo" is pretty
much the same as "lo na me".

> "mi na klama le zarci" makes no such claim.

Just like "mi na'e klama le zarci" makes no such claim.


>> That's not really saying anything different from "mi na klama le
>> zarci". If you are coming from the store, both "mi na'e klama le zarci"
>> and "mi na klama le zarci" are true, but neither affirms that you are
>> coming from the store.
>
> However, if I stand in no relation whatever to the store, or more
> practically if the relationship I have with it is unrelated to "klama",
> then "na'e" is false but "na" is still true.

How could you possibly be not going to the market and not be therefore
in a non-going relation to the market? You could, for example, also
own the market, but you would still have to be either going to it or
non-going to it. If "ko'a broda" makes sense, then either it or "ko'a
na'e broda" must be true. They can't both be false unless they are
nonsense..

> "klama" is not really scalar, so it's a bad example however you look at i=
t.
>
>> By systematically I meant it follows a pattern in how it changes words
>> with the same function. I agree it is not possible to follow the same
>> pattern for words with wildly different functions such as, for
>> instance, ".e" and "ui".
>
> In that case, spell out what "nai" means when attached to each selma'o,
> and write the whole thing up as a proposal.  Without that, it's just
> loosening for the sake of loosening.

I think someone already did that on the page linked at the start of
this thread.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg=
roups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l=
ist?hl=3Den.