From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jul 01 06:36:32 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27616 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2000 13:36:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Jul 2000 13:36:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Jul 2000 13:36:32 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.2f.76084e6 (4405) for ; Sat, 1 Jul 2000 09:36:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2f.76084e6.268f4ddb@aol.com> Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 09:36:27 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-06-30 23:54:09 EDT, xorxes writes: << > <<{na roroi} should be equipollent to {su'oroi na}. >> > >But this apparently not, since the negation boundary with {na} is at the >leftmost of the prefix, so moving its actual place in the sentence does not >affect its scope. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. "Not every time" should be equipollent to "at least some time not". The whole tense+negation or negation+tense complex is what goes leftmost of the prefix, but the internal components keep their order. >DeMorgan is not to be used (nor the corresponding thing >with quantifiers). To make that move requires {naku} (Ch. 15, sec. 4, >etc.). That is true with respect to the order of arguments, but when both the tense and the negation are modifying the selbri, they are also affected by order: mi na roroi klama le zarci = naku roroiku zo'u mi klama le zarci = su'oroiku naku zo'u mi klama le zarci = mi su'oroi na klama le zarci >But {za'o} is not about expectations exactly, but rather about the contour >of >events (treated systematically as though objective -- we rejected the >intentional interpretation, which I am not sure would help here anyhow). >> It makes sense, but it is not the way the Book reads, as far as I can work it out. Moving {naku} in from prenex to {na} can only take place if it is at the leftmost position. There is nothing about moving tense around at all or about tense in the prenex, though I suppose they come under some general rule about prenexing. Still, it does not appear, on a fairly careful reading, the {su'oroi naku zo'u} can be moved back to the prepredicate position. It would have to be as a unit, since moving the {su'oroi} in would take it past the {naku} and thus change it again and the {naku} taken separately can only move from the left end. This looks like a conflict of two intuitions and we need a call from Higher Up (yeah, right) or a clear-cut usage pattern (ditto). My first choice would be to lleave {na} as bridi negation wherever it turns up among the tenses, but I then start to feel the pull of the other and wobble. <> True, and then may bring out some of the relation to "still," because time is often a "natural limit" for states -- they typically (are generally expected to) last for such and such a time and excess of that might well be "still" and {za'o} too. But does that fit "he still hasn't come/hasn't come yet"? I suppose it could be viewed as an over extension of the negative state, though that is not the way we officially conceptualize it (and that contrast between the official view -- what the words say -- and how we treat it in other words maybe part of the problem too).