Re: CPE: lo prenu na fuzme. PLI: fuzme

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

Lionel:
>But can't /lo prenu na fuzme.../ also mean "Some people are not responsible
>for...", thus leaving away the generality?

No, it means that it is not the case that some person is responsible,
i.e. that nobody is responsible. This is because {na} negates the whole
bridi, and has scope over {lo prenu}.

>Does /lo remna cu mabru/ mean
>"Any human is a mammal", or "Some humans are mammals"?

The latter. {ro remna cu mabru} means the former.

All of these mean the same:

                lo remna na mabru
                naku lo remna cu mabru
                no remna cu mabru
                ro remna naku mabru

{na} at bridi level is like {naku} at the beginning of the bridi. It has
scope over all that follows. {naku} always has scope over what
follows. When you interchange the places of a sumti and {naku}
you have to change the quantifier from {ro} to {su'o} or from
{su'o} to {ro} in order to keep the same meaning.

>>  i ja'o no prenu cu fuzme le nu ri zukte noi jalge le nu sidbo e le nu
cinmo
>> "I conclude that nobody is responsible for their actions, which result
>> from ideas and feelings."
>
>Yes, this is the paradox I meant. It leads to the various meanings of
>'responsability'. Should /fuzme/ hold both the pragmatic responsability or
>control over oneself, and the moral or social responsability for one's
actions?

I think it refers to the moral/social responsibility, because of the x3.
That's also why ideas cannot possibly be fuzme of anything, they
cannot be held accountable by anyone. A more interesting question
might be whether the originator/propagator of an idea is responsible
for the actions of the followers:

        i xu le te sidbo cu fuzme le se zukte be le krici be le sidbo

co'o mi'e xorxes