History: Negative claims and universals

Source of version: 2 (current)

!mi claxu lo fipybirka

It doesn't really say that you don't have any. It says that there
is at least one that you lack, but it says nothing about the rest
of them. {claxu} is a tricky predicate. You could say {mi claxu
ro fipybirka}, "every fin is such that I lack it".

''Jorge thinks that {mi claxu ro fipybirka} sounds awful. To me it's very Lojbanic. --xod''

(This is a good place for constructions of the ''fipybirka claxu'' sort.)

Why didn't anyone think of ''mi na se fipybirka''? --((tsali))
Well that's not great, because that means ''mi na se fipybirka zo'e'', leaving the interpretation of ''zo'e'' to be glorked. But I did point out ''no da fipybirka mi'', and that is the best way to say it. All the same, ''mi claxu lo fipybirka'' surely counts as a genuine gotcha. --((And))

History: Negative claims and universals

Source of version: 2 (current)

Search Lojban Resources