[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ZAhO and tanru
- To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
- Subject: Re: ZAhO and tanru
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 10:43:41 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <199512090218.VAA18785@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Dec 8, 95 11:57:43 pm
la .and. cusku di'e
> Is there any difference
> between {mi cao citka} and {mi ca citka}?
Yes. "mi ca'o citka" says that at some unspecified time the process of my
eating is/was/will be in progress. "mi ca citka" says that at the present
time some unspecified part of my eating is in progress.
> > na'e alters the meaning of the selbri itself - on some scale,
>
> Well we agee on this at least.
>
> > without necessarily referring to any of its sumti
>
> Does NAhE have sumti?
"its sumti" = "the sumti attached to the selbri", I think.
> > (which of course can make the implied scale rather ambiguous when
> > na'e is used inside a tanru)
>
> If {cukta nanmu} is "book person", then why shouldn't {cukta nae
> nanmu} be, no more and no less straightforwardly, "book non-person"?
It depends on how you read "non-person". If you mean "something other
than a person, on some implicit scale", then fine. If you mean "something
that is not a person [merely]", then no: that is contradictory negation.
--
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org
e'osai ko sarji la lojban.