Re: Qs: VhVhV & PAPAMEI &c.

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

coi don
> coi. .and.

It's so long since I wrote this that I was about to deny being its
author, all memory of it having escaped me for a while. How come
you send your message on October 18 and it arrives here 3 November?
And youAre sending it from bt.co.uk!

> > (3) Given that (i-ii) are synonymous ("Not every person's a man")
> > i.    na nanmu fa ro prenu
> > ii.   ro prenu cu na nanmu
> >       ["Every person is not a man" = {ro prenu na ku nanmu}]
> Surely this is saying that all people are not men, that is there does not
> exist a person who is a man. :-)

I'm not sure what your "this" is referring to. (i-ii) mean "! Ax person(x)
-> man(x)". {ro prenu na ku nanmu} means "Ax person(x) -> ! man(x)" -
that "there does not exist a person who is a man".

> Perhaps,
>    .i na nanmu fa da poi prenu
>    .i da poi prenu cu na nanmu

These both mean "It is not the case that there is a person that is a man",
"No person is a man". "! Ex person(x) & man(x)".

To get the meaning "Some person is not a man", "There is someone who
isn't a man", you need

   i da poi prenu na ku nanmu ["Ex person(x) & ! man(x)"]

I say all this in the belief that there is an official rule that {na}
as "selbri tcita" has wide scope over the rest of the bridi. (But I
reckon I got that from Jorge, and his rules aren't always official,
though when they're not official they're rational, and sometimes they're
both. "Official" roughly means {cuu la djon cauan}, zoho.)

> > I'd have thought iii-iv shd also be synonymous
> >  iii.  koa ba klama pu ku
> >  iv.   pu ku koa ba klama
> > But according to the tense paper iii-iv differ. Is there a
> > rationale to this?
> As for your actual question - loi temci valsi cu mutce leka cfipu be mi

Well maybe we'll all get enlightened eventually.

---
And