Re: mi na nu'o catra ko'a

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

pc says:

> But, does _na_nu'o_ in fact deny _nu'o_?  _na_ has basic sentence scope.
> Presumably _nu'o_, like the tenses does too  -- or perhaps even broader,
> as the tenses often do: ko'a na ba klama lo zarci rarely means "He will
> never go to the store" but usually "He will not go to the store" on the
> occasion we are interested in.  Logically, the tense is outside the
> negation here, F not Kxz rather than not F Kxz.

I thought truth values were atemporal, so it wouldn't make sense that
some claim is true now but not true in the future. Effectively, this
means that F and not must commute, which means that F can be neither
"at some time in the future" (existential quantification) nor "at every
time in the future" (universal quantification). It rather has to be
"at the one time in the future that I'm talking about", which commutes
with "not".

If the tenses are quantified with anything but unitary (is that the
right word?) quantification, then we will have ambiguities with sentences
with tense.

Jorge