Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}

[Daniel Brockman <dbrockman@gmail.com>]

On 8 dec 2012, at 20:49, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

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

Jorge's original claim though was that {mi na klama le zarci} is
equivalent to {na'e klama be fa mi bei le zarci}.

-- 
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.