I shou= ld note that your other suggestions including deleting {na'u, soi} are nice= and should be discussed more frequently.

On Sunday, December 9, 201= 2 12:29:16 AM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:

On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 4:49 PM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.cc= il.org> wrote:
> Jorge Llamb=EDas scripsit:
>
>> I don't think you can use "mi na'e klama le zarci" to affirm t= hat you
>> are coming from the store. You can only use it to affirm that = the
>> relationship between you and the store, whatever that relation= ship may
>> be, is other than "klama".
>
> Exactly, and what I am affirming (though not explicitly) is that t= he
> 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 sente= ntial
> 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 cont= ext.
> (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 somewhe= re,
> 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 "kl= ama",
> 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 lo= ok at it.
>
>> By systematically I meant it follows a pattern in how it chang= es words
>> with the same function. I agree it is not possible to follow t= he 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 sel= ma'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