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 m0rEubY-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 09:46 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8216; Tue, 06 Dec 94 09:46:45 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8213; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 09:46:45 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8473; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 08:43:28 +0100 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 02:45:27 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: TECH.GRAM.PROPOSAL: require KU after free-floating tense/modal X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1597 Lines: 36 >However, because the "ku" is elidable, some combined tenses don't mean what >they appear to mean. Thus "puzu'a cusku" means "expression going on to my >left and in the past", but "zu'apu cusku", with the space before the time, >means "zu'aku pu cusku", and gives the "pu" bridi scope, but the "zu'a" >scope only from the point given, thus: > >7) lo nanmu zu'a[ku] pu cusku > >which in prenex form is: > >8) puku da poi nanmu zu'aku zo'u da cusku > >In the case of "pu" and "zu'a", which are effectively singular terms, there >is no problem, but messy things happen with "-roi" tenses and possibly with >--More-- >some others. Requiring "ku" means Example 7 ungrammatical without it, and >so requires a clear signal that there are two tenses in use here. > >This makes nothing unsayable, but does remove some rather useless and >potentiall y >confusing strings from the domain of what's grammatical. What I think we intended by zu'apu vs puzu'a is that both would be attached to the bridi, with scope in the prenex in that order. Now recognizing that we IMPLEMENTED this by putting in a "ku" after zu'a, we have put ourselves in a position where we get confusing scopes. But this is because we have changed the understanding of "ku", not that we changed the desired interpre- tation of zu'apu. Thus, the obvious question is whether there is any way to make zu'apu work that does NOT insert the ku and cause the scope confusion, but instead keeps both zu'a and pu attached to the selbri, and hence bridi scope in the indicated order. That is what we really want, I think. lojbab