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 m0rEaEY-00007eC; 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 8769; Sat, 03 Dec 94 07:26:18 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8766; Sat, 3 Dec 1994 07:26:13 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1121; Sat, 3 Dec 1994 06:21:41 +0100 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 20:30:06 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: more sources of opacity-like phenomena To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1041 Lines: 34 And: > 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? As I understand it: mi di'i tcidu lo cukta Regularly it is the case that there is a book that I read (not necessarily the same one). This is different from: mi di'i tcidu le cukta Regularly it is the case that I read the book(s) I'm talking about (the same one(s)). Also you can say: mi tcidu lo cukta di'i[ku] There is a book that I read regularly (obviously the same one, nonspecific). >This depends on > whether the 'tense' [is it tahe? - I don't remember offhand] > has scope over "lo cukta". It does if attached to the selbri. (It can be thought as being universally quantified over in-mind instances, just like {le}. That is why it commutes with universally quantified things (le) but not with existentially quantified ones (lo, and as far as I can tell, loi as well). Jorge