Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r1hBO-00006yC; Sun, 30 Oct 94 22:48 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3423; Sun, 30 Oct 94 22:49:06 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3420; Sun, 30 Oct 1994 22:49:06 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8880; Sun, 30 Oct 1994 21:46:03 +0100 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 15:46:40 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: mi na nu'o catra ko'a X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1022 Lines: 22 pc says: > But, does _na_nu'o_ in fact deny _nu'o_? _na_ has basic sentence scope. > Presumably _nu'o_, like the tenses does too -- or perhaps even broader, > as the tenses often do: ko'a na ba klama lo zarci rarely means "He will > never go to the store" but usually "He will not go to the store" on the > occasion we are interested in. Logically, the tense is outside the > negation here, F not Kxz rather than not F Kxz. I thought truth values were atemporal, so it wouldn't make sense that some claim is true now but not true in the future. Effectively, this means that F and not must commute, which means that F can be neither "at some time in the future" (existential quantification) nor "at every time in the future" (universal quantification). It rather has to be "at the one time in the future that I'm talking about", which commutes with "not". If the tenses are quantified with anything but unitary (is that the right word?) quantification, then we will have ambiguities with sentences with tense. Jorge