From reiter@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx Sun Sep 26 23:05:42 1999 X-Digest-Num: 245 Message-ID: <44114.245.1343.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:05:42 +1000 (EST) From: Peter Moulder la pityr. cusku di'e > > Are we saying "some X, TimeSet: ninmu(X, TimeSet) & nanmu(X, TimeSet), > > or are we merely saying "some X, TimeSet1, TimeSet2: ninmu(X, > > TimeSet1) & nanmu(X, TimeSet2)"? > I think semantically {lo ninmu cu nanmu} is posssible (under your second > interprtation. Pragmatically, it stinks, unless _very_ well supported by > context, so the listener can fill it out, for example > > lo ninmu pu nanmu > lo ninmu ba nanmu > lo ninmu cu binxo nanmu Or indeed "lo [pu] ninmu ca nanmu". Yes, I think you're right (on both counts :) ). Only today/yesterday did I notice an example in the reference grammar that uses a tense marker between "lo" and its selbri. I would guess from the fact that tense markers are possible between "lo" and its selbri indicates that the meaning of "lo P" without any tense marker on P has the same tense connotations as "da cu P", i.e. the tense under which P is true is simply unspecified. So AFAICT, "lo P cu Q" means exactly the same as "lo Q cu P"; both mean "some X, Tense1, Tense2: P(X, Tense1) & Q(X, Tense2)". co'o mi'e pityr.