> But unfortunately in natural language even when a language is correctly parsed in terms of syntax--which is all Lojban seeks to accomplish--there are still many different possible semantic implications. For example, the sentence "Spot didn't bark" could mean

> 1. There is no event in which Spot has ever barked, or 2. In the case of a specific event, Spot did not bark.

Or maybe even a third case:

3. There exists an event in which Spot did not bark.

English pragmatic usage would make this interpretation rare, but you could still imagine a case in which it was valid.

For example, suppose that Spot normally barks 100% of the time (and never sleeps?).

Then there is a fortunate day in which Spot only barked 70% of the time, and was quiet 30% of the time.

Someone who witnessed this might say "Spot didn't bark [today]!" to emphasize the unusual event, even though Spot did bark the majority of the time on that day.

I just mean to distinguish this from your second case because I think in the second case the "specific event" is possibly already one which is known to the listener or already under discussion.