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 m0rEaEG-00007PC; Mon, 5 Dec 94 12:01 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3962; Sat, 03 Dec 94 03:49:29 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3959; Sat, 3 Dec 1994 03:49:25 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5483; Sat, 3 Dec 1994 02:45:58 +0100 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 21:04:57 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: more sources of opacity-like phenomena To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: (Your message of Fri, 02 Dec 94 01:40:17 EST.) Content-Length: 694 Lines: 17 > I of course will defer to pc if he disagrees, but I think that in the issue > of tense and negation attached to the selbri using grammar rules 130/131, > that both have bridi scope exported to thhe prenex in the order they are > attached to the selbri. reroiku, on the other hand, will act like naku at the > same > location as far as scope, if I understand/recall our previous rulings. And what about the scope of tenses and quantified sumti? My example was "I regularly read a book" - is it the same book or a possibly different book on each occasion? This depends on whether the 'tense' [is it tahe? - I don't remember offhand] has scope over "lo cukta". whether the 'tense' --- and