Message-Id: <199511062110.QAA02246@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Mon, 6 Nov 1995 18:44:52 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Qs: VhVhV & PAPAMEI &c.
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

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