[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o
In a message dated 00-06-30 23:54:09 EDT, xorxes writes:
<< > <<{na roroi} should be equipollent to {su'oroi na}. >>
>
>But this apparently not, since the negation boundary with {na} is at the
>leftmost of the prefix, so moving its actual place in the sentence does not
>affect its scope.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. "Not every time" should
be equipollent to "at least some time not". The whole
tense+negation or negation+tense complex is what goes leftmost
of the prefix, but the internal components keep their order.
>DeMorgan is not to be used (nor the corresponding thing
>with quantifiers). To make that move requires {naku} (Ch. 15, sec. 4,
>etc.).
That is true with respect to the order of arguments, but when
both the tense and the negation are modifying the selbri, they
are also affected by order:
mi na roroi klama le zarci
= naku roroiku zo'u mi klama le zarci
= su'oroiku naku zo'u mi klama le zarci
= mi su'oroi na klama le zarci
>But {za'o} is not about expectations exactly, but rather about the contour
>of
>events (treated systematically as though objective -- we rejected the
>intentional interpretation, which I am not sure would help here anyhow). >>
It makes sense, but it is not the way the Book reads, as far as I can work it
out. Moving {naku} in from prenex to {na} can only take place if it is at
the leftmost position. There is nothing about moving tense around at all or
about tense in the prenex, though I suppose they come under some general rule
about prenexing. Still, it does not appear, on a fairly careful reading, the
{su'oroi naku zo'u} can be moved back to the prepredicate position. It would
have to be as a unit, since moving the {su'oroi} in would take it past the
{naku} and thus change it again and the {naku} taken separately can only move
from the left end. This looks like a conflict of two intuitions and we need
a call from Higher Up (yeah, right) or a clear-cut usage pattern (ditto).
My first choice would be to lleave {na} as bridi negation wherever it turns
up among the tenses, but I then start to feel the pull of the other and
wobble.
<<And I thought we had agreed that {za'o} can be used
not only with processes that have well defined completions, but
with any event, including states.>>
True, and then may bring out some of the relation to "still," because time is
often a "natural limit" for states -- they typically (are generally expected
to) last for such and such a time and excess of that might well be "still"
and {za'o} too. But does that fit "he still hasn't come/hasn't come yet"? I
suppose it could be viewed as an over extension of the negative state, though
that is not the way we officially conceptualize it (and that contrast between
the official view -- what the words say -- and how we treat it in other words
maybe part of the problem too).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High long distance bills are HISTORY! Join beMANY!
http://click.egroups.com/1/4164/4/_/17627/_/962458593/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com