[lojban] Re: na scope. Again.

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- Jorge Llambías wrote:
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 07:12:16AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > I am doing the section on NA, which should cover some of that. My
> > > intention is to propose an interpretation where the scope of {na}
> > > is restricted to what follows it. 
> > 
> > This would change the meaning of simple negations like "mi na klama
> > le zarci", would it not?  Good mabla luck.
> 
> Not at all, how would that change? There are no quantifiers
> or connectives to interact with {na} there.

What it would change is simple negations like 
{mi e do na klama le zarci}. Instead of meaning that
either I don't go, or you don't go, or both, it would
mean that neither I nor you go.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com