* Tuesday, 2014-11-04 at 20:39 +0100 - Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>:
>
> On 04/11/2014 02:14, Martin Bays wrote:
> > * Thursday, 2014-10-30 at 13:51 +0100 - Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com>:
> >> On 30/10/2014 02:43, Martin Bays wrote:
> >> What's wrong with {broda xoi ke'a rapli li no} → {lo nu broda cu rapli
> >> li no}?
> > If {broda xoi ke'a rapli li no} is taken to mean {da fasnu gi'e nu broda
> > kei gi'e rapli li no}, then we have something of a contradiction
> > - surely no da ge rapli li no gi fasnu?
> Agreed. Then, {brode xoi ke'a brodo} is probably better rendered as {da
> fasnu gi'e nu brodo fa lo su'u brode}.
i.e. just {lo su'u brode kei brodo}? So {xoi} as essentially an
afterthought version of {lo nu}? I suppose that could also be handy.
I have no idea whether this was the intended meaning of {xoi}
> For example, {broda naku} → {da fasnu gi'e nu narfau fa lo nu broda},
I don't think these are quite equivalent, though. {mi do ca ku tavla
naku} is false, but {ca ku lo nu mi do tavlu cu na fasnu} isn't
obviously false - there are events of me talking to you which aren't
currently occuring, and they could be among the referents of the {lo nu}
phrase.
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature