From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Jan 17 08:26:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 17 Jan 2002 16:26:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 29422 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2002 16:26:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Jan 2002 16:26:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.155) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2002 16:26:39 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:26:39 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:26:38 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] le ticrai since Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 16:26:38 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2002 16:26:39.0224 (UTC) FILETIME=[BD7D3780:01C19F73] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pier cusku di'e >Does {ko na citka gi'e na pencu vau tezu'e lenu do na mrobi'o} work? I don't think so. Now God is commanding to make the following true: do na citka tezu'e lenu do na mrobi'o ije do na pencu tezu'e lenu do na mrobi'o The negations have scope over the whole bridi. So if they eat or touch with any intention other than not dying, they would still be obeying the command. {na'e} instead of {na} would be an improvement, but that still leaves the intention as part of the command, which doesn't seem right. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.