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 m0rElei-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 00:13 EET
Message-Id: <m0rElei-00007GC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 0685; Tue, 06 Dec 94 00:13:26 EET
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0682; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 00:13:25 +0200
Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE
 (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5096; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 23:10:01 +0100
Date:         Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:03:18 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: more sources of opacity-like phenomena
X-To:         Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <199412022141.AA18679@nfs2.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at
              Dec 2, 94 02:37:55 pm
Content-Length: 1105
Lines: 32

mi pu cusku di'e

> > The current grammar allows both "NA <tense> <selbri>" and
> > "<selbri> NA tense";
>
> I suppose that was meant to be <tense> NA <selbri>

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 <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.