Re: negated nitcu

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> The other negation, in "I don't need a dinosaur to eat me up," is a bit
> different.  It's not so much that I can get it done without the dinosaur,
> but that I don't need to get eaten up, period.  The negation is more on the
> necessity of the action in the first place.

It's clearer to me to think about this without the negation first:  "I
need a dinosaur to eat me up" still could have two meanings: that I need
to be eaten by a dinosaur, or that I need a dinosaur if I want to be
eaten up.  In the first case, it's the eating that's needed, not the
dinosaur, so that should be the x2:

mi nitcu lenu lo banlyrespa cu citka mi
        I need to be eaten (by a dinosaur)

In the second case, it's the dinosaur that's needed:

mi nitcu lo banlyrespa lenu citka mi
        I need a dinosaur (in order to be eaten)

Negate either one the same way; mi NA nitcu ...

Although I wonder if I need a "tu'a" before "lo banlyrespa" in the second
sentence, since it's an opaque reference... I always forget how we came
out on that.

co'o mi'e kris