> E tu non ha Thomasismos? Remarcabile! 


Certo io face errores “intentional e non-intentional”, sed io nec insenia mi Thomasismos al alteres nec insiste que mi errores es bon Interlingua.


> Vide le IED a 'nonne' e [nonne]. Illo es un particula interrogative.
> Mais a cata interrogative, il ha un echo negative: nonne? nonne!

Il me pare que tu usa “nonne” como simplemente “no.” Si io misinterpretava lo que tu voleva dicer, vole ben pardonar me.


> No, you are not seeing both alternative ways of
> expressing being lacking: 
> The one who lacks and the thing that lacks. 

I see both ways just fine. I’m just convinced that it was the intention of the authors of the IED that it should only be used in the latter sense: that which is missing.

> > > Isto non es le mesme como "It lacks money for him." "It" es 
> > > impersonal pronomine. 
> > This tangent is probably a red herring since English doesn't have an 
> > explicit impersonal pronoun. 
>
> Nonne! "It is raining". "It is hot". "It seems that ...." 

I hope you’ll forgive me, but it really looks like you’re using “nonne” here not as an interrogative particle, but rather as an alternative word for “no”.

In any event, I regret not being more clear. What I meant is that there is no pronoun in English which is used only for impersonal expressions like “It’s raining.” I thought Interlingua had one - but I’ll admit that it’s probably time for me to review Interlingua pronouns.

Alcuno menciava “subjecto provisional” - ed io crede que isto clarifica proque ... proque ... why this tangent is a red herring.



--
Pro leger le archivos e pro modificar o cancellar le subscription:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/interlng.html