Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM, la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now I clearly understand your definition of {na} here.
>
> And I guess J.Cowan disagrees with it.

It's a rather inconsequential disagreement. I think we both agree that
whenever the property or relation is applicable, "na" and "na'e" have
the same meaning (other than scope). The question of whether "na"
returns true or undefined when the predicate is not even applicable is
not all that interesting, since either way it's just confusing.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.