[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}
On Sunday, December 9, 2012 6:26:39 PM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:35 AM, la gleki <gleki.is...@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.
Now it makes perfect sense.
The only that bothers me is that
{.uinai} means {sei to'e gleki}
whereas
{gleki nai} means {na'e gleki}
which is counterintuitive.
Also not only {nai} but UI4 should be moved to CAI so that we get two selma'o that work similar in syntax but that differ in semantics.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/-/s1n0pIMxD1wJ.
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.