From pycyn@aol.com Fri Jun 30 08:12:25 2000
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
Received: (qmail 30150 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2000 15:12:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 30 Jun 2000 15:12:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r17.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.71) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Jun 2000 15:12:25 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.17.796b2ea (602) for <lojban@egroups.com>; Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:12:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <17.796b2ea.268e12c1@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 11:12:01 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41
From: pycyn@aol.com

In a message dated 00-06-30 05:11:23 EDT, adam writes:

<< I think that ZA'Onai is na ZA'O since to me this is most
intuitive, and since 'nai' is supposed to be negating
the ZA'O, and na ZA'O is a negated ZA'O, whereas ZA'O
na is still a type of affirmative ZA'O. >>

But isn't {na za'o} either ungrammatical or exactly equivalent to {zo'o na}, 
{na} having to occur immediately before the predicate and yet govering the 
whole bridi?