[lojban] Re: drani a'o pinka zo pa jo'u zo su'o

["Michael Turniansky" <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

2008/9/25 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Roman Naumann <eldrikdo@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ni'o ro lo ci prenu goi ko'a
> > .i pa ko'a goi fo'a naku kakne lonu bacru
> > .iseni'ibo su'o ko'a naku kakne lonu bacru
>> > .i
>
> .i drani fo CLL .

 na go'i  .i cylyly cusku la'o gy.

When you use ``naku'' within a bridi, you are explicitly creating a
negation boundary. As explained in Section 9, when a prenex negation
boundary expressed by ``naku'' moves past a quantifier, the quantifier
has to be inverted. The same is true for ``naku'' in the bridi proper.
We can move ``naku'' to any place in the sentence where a sumti can
go, inverting any quantifiers that the negation boundary crosses.
Thus, the following are equivalent to Example 11.4 (no good English
translations exist):

11.5)    su'oda poi verba cu klama rode poi ckule naku
    For some children, for every school,
        they don't go to it.

11.6) su'oda poi verba cu klama naku su'ode poi ckule
    Some children don't go to (some) school(s).

11.7) naku roda poi verba cu klama su'ode poi ckule
    It is false that all children go to some school(s).

gy. to paxamo'o toi

.i lo du'u su'o ko'a naku kakne lonu bacru cu na nibli lo du'u  ro
ko'a na kakne lonu bacru
.i lo du'u su'o ko'a naku kakne lonu bacru cu nibli lo du'u naku ro
ko'a kakne lonu bacru

                  --gejyspa