Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}

[John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>]

Jorge Llambías scripsit:

> Negation is acheved with "na" or "na'e". They both have the same
> meaning, just different scopes. "na'e" can pretty much be replaced
> with "me lo na" and "na" can pretty much be replaced with "na'e ke ...
> ke'e be ... bei ... bei ...".

This is not at all the case.

"mi na klama le zarci" means that it's false that I go to the store, and
nothing more.  It does not affirm anything.  "mi na'e klama le zarci"
means that I do have some relationship to the store that is related on
a scale to "going".  Perhaps I am coming from the store.  At any rate,
something is being affirmed.

> "nai" should be moved to CAI because it does the same as other CAI's,
> it takes a word and changes it into something with the same function
> and a systematically related meaning.

I've just shown that it's *not* systematically related.  Sometimes it is
mere contradictory negation, sometimes it is scalar negation, and sometimes
it is polar negation.  Allowing "nai" to be attached to any word would
indeed require a systematic relationship between the word and its
counterpart with "nai", but that contradicts both the Red Book and usage.

"nai" is a convenience feature, which is why the grammar only allows it in
well-defined places.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves.
        --Murray Gell-Mann

-- 
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.