Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:03:15 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA
Message-ID: <an1vg3+n1pj@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020927155402.GA28188@allusion.net>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: "jjllambias2000" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Content-Length: 905
Lines: 30

la djorden cusku di'e

> It's actually pretty simple: there's no need to do real thinking
> about the sentence:
>   - if you can rephrase it as "It is false that: foo", the na is 
fine.

I call that real thinking, and that't exactly what I do to 
analyze it. But I don't want to have to rephrase a sentence 
in order to understand it. I don't want to have to translate 
it in the first place.

>   - if not, you can make it a "naku" and get position defined scope
>   - also consider a cmavo from NAhE, which is frequently better 
anyway.

Yes, that's a possibility, not use {na}. But you still have to
cope with other people's use. First you have to figure out what
they actually said , and then you have to decide how likely
it is that they might have meant something else. (Although often
you can figure out what they meant independently of what they
actually said.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes