Re: more sources of opacity-like phenomena

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

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.