From jcowan@reutershealth.com Thu Nov 15 10:45:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 15 Nov 2001 18:45:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 66213 invoked from network); 15 Nov 2001 18:45:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 15 Nov 2001 18:45:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Nov 2001 18:45:25 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[10.65.117.21]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08317; Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:46:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3BF40DAF.7080400@reutershealth.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:47:11 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5) Gecko/20011012 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: phma@oltronics.net Cc: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? References: <01111513151207.03953@neofelis> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan Pierre Abbat wrote: > To affirm or negate a specific part of the sentence we use {naku} or {na'e}. > {na'e} negates one word, so it behaves like {xu} Not necessarily: na'e ke ... ke'e scalar-negates the whole of "...". The more important distinction, though, is bridi negation (na) vs. scalar negation (na'e). -- Not to perambulate || John Cowan the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel