Ok, after thinking about it for a while, I think I finally understand wh= at about it makes me so=A0squeamish.=A0

For as long as I have been st= udying lojban I have been=A0operating=A0under the [apparently] false belief= that a selbri sets the claim and sumti essentially just add specificity. = =A0i.e. if somebody says {citka} then I assume that that person is making a= positive claim about "eating". =A0If somebody says {na citka} th= en I assume that that person is making is making a positive claim about &qu= ot;not eating". =A0I've been assuming that any sumti I add just ad= ds more information (but does NOT change the fundamental claim). =A0

So {mi citka no da} =3D {mi na citka} feels funny because something that= should just be adding more information is actually changing the fundamenta= l claim. =A0I guess that's wrong though.

mi na citka noda sounds like "I don't eat nothing&q= uot;.... does that mean {mi citka roda}?! =A0oops, I accidentally the whole= universe.

On Jan 6, 2011 7:18 AM, "Jorge Llamb=EDas&q= uot; <jjllambi= as@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 201= 1 at 11:28 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ok, so maybe it was a poor example. =A0How about {lo se danlu be l= o gerku cu
>> se zbasu zo'e lo lanbi joi lo djacu joi li'o= }.
>
> (You need some sumti after the last "joi". &q= uot;li'o" is a UI, not a KOhA.)
>
>>=A0If I said this in a room
>> full of biologists= the obvious {zo'e} is {zi'o}. =A0I seem to remember seeing
>= > an example like this somewhere or other.
>
> When you say= things like "the obvious {zo'e} is {zi'o}" you are
> thinking that the word "zo'e" is replacing some other wo= rd. But it is
> not. "zo'e" is a word with referents, p= rovided by the context. "zi'o"
> is not such a thing. >
>> So are you saying that {zo'e} is=A0inappropriate=A0he= re?
>
> I would say "zbasu" is the one that is inapp= ropriate, since that is
> not the relationship that they want to clai= m.
>
>> Also, I'm a little uneasy about the fact that it soun= ds like you're saying
>> that {mi citka noda} is something ver= y similar to {mi na citka}.
>
> What about it makes you uneasy= ? They are indeed very similar,
> practically identical in meaning:
>
> no da zo'u mi c= itka da
> =3D naku su'o da zo'u mi citka da
>
> = mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
> --
> You received this mes= sage because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners= " group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com= .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-be= ginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.= com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.
>