On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Pierre Abbat
<phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Tuesday 31 May 2011 18:15:36 Jorge Llambías wrote:
> "no da no de zo'u ..." = "ro da naku naku su'o de zo'u ..." = "ro da
> su'o de zo'u", so your double "no" could be rephrased as:
>
> sedu'o ro natfe puze'e su'oroi nalselganse srera
>
> Unless of course "no natfe" is supposed to be embedded in a
> subordinate clause, something like "fau lo nu djuno no natfe", in
> which case the quantifier cannot jump out to the main clause's prenex.
"sedu'o ro natfe puze'e su'oroi nalselganse srera" doesn't sound like it means
the right thing. The original IIRR is "As far as we know, we have never had
an undetected error." If I exchange the two no-quantifiers and
double-nodulate it, I get "puze'e roroi sedu'u su'o natfe cu nalselganse
srera". That still doesn't sound right. So I think it should be "sedu'u lo no
natfe" or some other construction entirely. Any ideas?
Pierre
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
--