From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Thu Sep 06 18:58:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 7 Sep 2001 01:58:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 43893 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2001 01:58:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 7 Sep 2001 01:58:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta02-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.42) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Sep 2001 01:58:43 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.50]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010907015841.YBOC29790.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:58:41 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Epictetus, Discourses 1.1 Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 02:57:56 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Nick: > cu'u la xorxes. > > >Maybe usage will just redefine {na} as having scope over the > >bridi-tail only. Are there other languages that have their negatives > >work as in Lojban? > > You mean, I suppose, that naku is natural and na is not, right? I suspect > so too. I'm not quite in a position to hunt down typological surveys of > negation; And, would you have access to this sort of thing? If you're > really keen to know, I'll see if I can't reattach to the grapevine of > erstwhile colleagues... I don't know of any pertinent studies. However, many dialects of English work in the Lojban way (hence "All that glitters is not gold"). IIRC John or Lojbab speaks such a dialect. I don't, and that dialect, and it's Lojban analogue, always causes me a double take. --And.