On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Michael Turniansky
<
mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And there is for "na", too. Like the first
> transform of transforming it (if it's in a selbri) to "naku" at the start of
> a prenex.
moved to the start of a prenex.
Please explain/show counterexample?
That's the problem with the special
na-rule, it's complicated and ill defined.
> Essentially, one extra step. But, again, yes, it's very messy
> with bridi tails. Is "su'oda na broda gi'e brode" the same as "naku su'oda
> broda gi'e brode"? (I think yes.
Without the special na-rule it would be obvious that it is not. With
the na-rule in place, who knows? CLL doesn't mention that case. Who do
we ask?
The BPFK, no? Isn't that part of your job description to define ill-defined areas (rather than rewriting already-defined areas?)
> Otherwise you should say "su'oda broda
> nagi'e brode")
Do we know for sure how na works there? Without the special na-rule,
it would be obvious. With the na-rule in place, who knows?
For me it is obvious that the Right Thing is
su'o da (na broda) gi'e (brode)
= su'o da (broda) na gi'e (brode)
= su'o da ga (na broda) gi'e (brode)
= su'o da ga nai (broda) gi'e (brode)
(I think you meant gi, not gi'e, in the last two??)
But with the special na-rule in place, who knows for sure?
> Heck, is "su'oda naku broda gi'e brode" the same as "su'oda
> ge naku broda gi brode" or "su'oda nage broda gi brode"?
It is "su'o da naku ge broda gi broda". Nobody should have any doubt
about that one. {naku} is a shared term for broda and brode.
Is it? So how would you negate just the first part (there is someone who is not a broda, but is a brode) using naku and gi'e? Are you saying it's not possible? It seems to me that with, just as with ge...gi... you can negate either half, both or neither, you should be able to do the same with gi'e.
--gejyspa