On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:33, Minimiscience
<minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
de'i li 03 pi'e 10 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Oren .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
> 'i've never seen something i haven't liked'
> (there exists no thing, such that (i have seen it) and (i do not like it))
> .i na kanxe du'u se pu viska be mi du'u na se nelci be mi
>
> ...I'm sure I'm off on the second one.
.skamyxatra
Yes, you are amazingly far off. ÂFirst of all, abstractions (including those
made with "{du'u}") are {selbri}, not {sumti}, and so the first abstraction is
the {tertau} to "{kanxe}"'s {seltau}, and the second abstraction is the
{tertau} to "{viske be mi}"'s {seltau}. ÂSecondly, even if the abstractions
were made into {sumti} by putting "{lo}" before each of them (and putting
"{kei}" after the first one), the sentence would mean "Something is not a
conjunction stating that something was seen by me and something [not
necessarily the same thing] was not liked by me." ÂAlso, you need to switch the
"{se}" and the "{pu}" in front of "{viska}," and the "{be}"s connecting "{mi}"
to "{viska}" and "{nelci}" are unnecessary.
I would recommend saying instead "{noda poi mi viska cu na se nelci mi}" --
"Nothing seen by me is not liked by me."
mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.
--
loi jetnu ka'e bartu .ije ku'i loi jitfa cu nenri lo stedu be do