Wiki page BPFK Section: Subordinators changed
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 01:56:44PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> xod scripsit:
>
> > Aren't the 2 usages identical? A bottle without a lid, a seer
> > that doesn't see anything? Although, if we get literal enough, I
> > suppose it is a contradiction of sorts to be a seer that doesn't
> > see anything. If you don't see anything, you're a potential or
> > previous seer, but not one at the moment and in that context. So
> > a better translation is probably "mi na viska", instead of "mi
> > viska noda".
>
> These both express what is not the case, but they deny different
> things: the former denies "I see it", where "it" is to be figured
> out from context; the latter denies "There exists something such
> that I see it". So the former often applies to me (who notoriously
> can't see what's right in front of him) but not the latter (for I
> am not blind).
Note, however, that {mi na viska da} *is* equivalent to {mi viska no
da}. People have been dropping {da} all over the place in this
discussion, and picking up the wrong ones, and so on.
-Robin