From lojbab Mon Dec 5 17:04:06 1994 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199412052203.AA14175@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: more sources of opacity-like phenomena Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:03:18 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199412022141.AA18679@nfs2.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Dec 2, 94 02:37:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1083 Status: RO mi pu cusku di'e > > The current grammar allows both "NA " and > > " NA tense"; > > I suppose that was meant to be NA Yes. > > the negation paper says that there are no known > > differences between these two forms, but that is remote from the > > discussion of "-roi", which is very brief. The selbri paper says there > > is no difference, period; the negation paper allows that there might be, > > but its nature is not known. Perhaps the relative scope of negation and > > tense should be, in fact, determined by order in this case (or indeed in > > every case, but indistinguishably most of the time). > > That sounds reasonable. And so it is. > > I have to hold that selbri-attached tenses don't have bridi scope after all. > > No, no, please reconsider! :) I have reconsidered. Bridi scope they have, but (as I previously posted) I think that the non-bridi scope of free-floating tense/modal deserves an explicit, required KU. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.