From phma@webjockey.net Thu Jan 17 09:26:42 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 17 Jan 2002 17:26:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 30529 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2002 17:26:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Jan 2002 17:26:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2002 17:26:41 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id D807B3C4C1; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:26:39 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] le ticrai since Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:26:37 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0201171226370L.01718@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@webjockey.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Thursday 17 January 2002 11:26, Jorge Llambias wrote: > 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. How about {ko na citka gi'e na pencu .itezu'ebo do na mrobi'o}? > {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. {ko na'e citka} doesn't mean "don't eat", it means "do something other than eat", which in this context sounds weird. phma