[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: {zo'e}



{lo na nanmu} is still a thing (that is, it's still compatible with {su'o da} and not with {no da}), so there's no problem with {zo'e} reflecting it. It's a thing that doesn't {nanmu}, but it still has to be something. {lo na nanmu} successfully killed the Witch-King of Angmar. 

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:40 PM <scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org> wrote:
Jacob Thomas Errington <jake@mail.jerrington.me> writes:

> {mi viska noda} is the same as {mi na viska su'o da}, so if what
> you're saying is true, then we can't know except through context
> whether a statement is affirmative or negative. Instead, use the
> observative {na viska}.
>
> A zo'e-like word (e.g. do'e, xo'e, etc.) shouln't be able to stand for
> something that makes the claim go from affirmative to negative or vice
> versa.

If we use your interpretation, then {mi viska zo'e} could mean {mi viska
lo nanmu} but could not mean {mi viska lo na nanmu}.  It seems, to me,
that {lo na nanmu} would be a perfectly legitimate meaning for {zo'e}.

zo do'e ki'a

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/86sg7ehrgv.fsf%40cmarib.ramside.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/CABM8VqcoGFWSsPZtitN9vacPvJm1VeOK6y8m-%3DG5L0--trVCFg%40mail.gmail.com.