From jcowan@reutershealth.com Thu May 11 10:06:08 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12701 invoked from network); 11 May 2000 17:05:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 May 2000 17:05:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (204.243.9.36) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 May 2000 17:05:52 -0000 Received: from reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@skunk.reutershealth.com [204.243.9.153]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27814 for ; Thu, 11 May 2000 13:05:49 -0400 (EDT) Sender: cowan@mail.reutershealth.com Message-ID: <391AE838.9F96932E@reutershealth.com> Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 13:04:56 -0400 Organization: Reuters Health Information X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.5-15 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "lojban@onelist.com" Subject: Re: [lojban] "da" in conjunction with "na" References: <8fenhf+9k66@eGroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: John Cowan Arnt-Richard Johansen wrote: > > What is the correct interpretation of sentences with both "da" > and "na"? For instance, does "da na prane prenu" mean "There are no > perfect people" (i.e. "(It is not > the case that (there is one x so that (x is perfect person)))"), > or "There is an imperfect person" (i.e. "(There is one x so that (it > is not the case that (x is perfect > person)))")? The former. "na" always acts as bridi-wide negation scope. To make a moveable negator, use "naku". -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)