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 m0rEaEC-00007JC; 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 6339; Fri, 02 Dec 94 20:42:42 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6336; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 20:42:42 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9525; Fri, 2 Dec 1994 19:39:22 +0100 Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 01:40:17 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: more sources of opacity-like phenomena X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 745 Lines: 14 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. This seems to be the most consistent way to explain what we put into the grammar, including the interchangeability of tense and negation attached to the front of the selbri. At that point we had clearly decided that such attachment of the negation would have full bridi scope, and I think the interchangeability demands that the tense have similar scope. lojbab