[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators
- To: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators
- From: "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:58:51 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=lUEVCPtkrgO2GD/wtNVuBSvL7PwowBpyz+b5+YFHEWU=; b=aERf8kMff9Z2U11WBV8VO9uYSOx+Bd7Iz6qpxJX5gku2r44OZAhrDVW+8xIGVV/l9M dYU1+L6cK0xjYF9vTdEOMMoZCTrCv+uswMJkn9hlC9dQi/p4S+cHr0XGyWe0fY3CzT03 rgMyufeKE2vmoMalddaH2z+z89xjZiFh2yShQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=SzMrd43NzBZ0qbBljAc+945ohywu2ZjhOmUCRRjI8iGg1qn4wNQ7npcam6qf0CQZgN n1Y0suM+UJtISV8ac22AbZza3Mnrid8MqpsTp8IRvxb5TcUo+n3PsuAjPww95oOColnl uu9KQM7Ue4MSVxht6WXhHwA/TjVzAtl7QPvFU=
- In-reply-to: <a36d16c80812170545o5b6f68a7u7a217650893ac5e@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <70697fa40812152124u39a177a2hc52d604e9a30e469@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812160908j49f6d818y1fdcdf21bfddfb28@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812161137u6919c05cyf5958e9949ccfaf7@mail.gmail.com> <200812161859.52969.phma@phma.optus.nu> <925d17560812161637y2caa5a41i32372fc376cf603a@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812170455k54431b6tfe69c2f528bed595@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812170521l25cd32bar964ae19c64a6c2d8@mail.gmail.com> <a36d16c80812170545o5b6f68a7u7a217650893ac5e@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Daniel Brockman
<daniel@gointeractive.se> wrote:
>
> Spontaneous thoughts: Since {su'o da broda gi'e na brode} ought (?) to
> mean {su'o da broda gi'e nai brode}, then {su'o da na broda gi'e brode}
> ought to mean {su'o da broda na gi'e brode}.
I think (though I could be wrong) that everybody agrees with that.
The question is how does the scope of {na} work (in any of those
versions) with respect to the scope of {su'o}. In other words:
(1) su'o da na broda gi'u brode
(2) su'o da na broda
Do (1) and (2) have the same truth value?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.