From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Oct 11 15:55:07 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 11 Oct 2000 22:55:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 26084 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2000 22:55:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Oct 2000 22:55:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.135) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Oct 2000 22:55:06 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:55:06 -0700 Received: from 200.42.152.99 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:55:06 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.152.99] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] na nei Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:55:06 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2000 22:55:06.0456 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C6C5580:01C033D6] From: "Jorge Llambias" la tsali cu cusku di'e >At first glance, it seems to mean "this sentence is false". But, I >remember reading somewhere in the grammar that double negatives don't >cancel each other out - they reinforce each other. Is this correct? Double negatives do cancel out (see example 2.11 on page 372), but what you probably remember is that {na go'i} after a negative sentence simply repeats the sentence, the new {na} substitutes the original one, it is not added on to it, so they don't cancel out (example 9.4 on page 385). I can't think of any context where {nei} would be useful. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.