Re: RV: na'e entails na?

[HACKER G N <c9709244@alinga.newcastle.edu.au>]

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, And Rosta wrote:

> Suppose a couple are lying in bed
> > > discussing what kind of hankypanky they want to get up to,
> > > e.g. (a) spondoogling, (b) frothspeasing, (c) urxing, or [INC OR]
> > > (d) suppigulation. One says to the other "I would very much
> > > enjoy that you na`e suppigulate me", which would mean
> > > "I would enjoy that you spondoogle me and I would enjoy that
> > > you frothspease me and I would enjoy that you urx me".
> >
> > No, that's not correct. If you na'e suppigulate someone, you could
> > EITHER
> > be spondoogling them, OR frothspeasing them OR urxing them.
>
> The disjunction is within the scope of "I would enjoy":
> "I would enjoy that you spondoogle or frothspease or urx me".

OK, upon rereading the sentence I can see how you meant that. :)

Geoff