Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tCYwc-0000ZTC; Mon, 6 Nov 95 23:19 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 58F8F157 ; Mon, 6 Nov 1995 22:19:05 +0100 Date: Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:44:52 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Qs: VhVhV & PAPAMEI &c. X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 833 Lines: 21 Djan: > > (3) Given that (i-ii) are synonymous ("Not every person's a man") > > i. na nanmu fa ro prenu > > ii. ro prenu cu na nanmu > > ["Every person is not a man" = {ro prenu na ku nanmu}] > > I'd have thought iii-iv shd also be synonymous > > iii. koa ba klama pu ku > > iv. pu ku koa ba klama > > But according to the tense paper iii-iv differ. Is there a > > rationale to this? > The desire to have "puku" not a mere synonym for "pu zo'e", but rather a > semantic equivalent of a selbri tcita that can float around the bridi. I don't quite grasp the point here. With negattion, selbri (tcita) have scope over sumti, irrespective of sequence. With tense, scope goes according to sequence, irrespective of the selbri tcita vs sumti tcita distinction. How come? Why do tense and negation work differently? --- And