Subject: Re: [lojban] le ticrai since

From: Pierre Abbat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:26:37 -0500

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