* Friday, 2014-11-07 at 17:58 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > * Wednesday, 2014-11-05 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > > > * Tuesday, 2014-11-04 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> > > > > And for non-tenses, by analogy I think it has to be
> > > > > broda .i [tag] bo brode ~ broda .i broda [tag] lo nu brode
> > > I was speculating on what the second proposition would be when a logical
> > > connective is involved. Nothing really makes much sense though.
> > Is it so bad for it to be {brode}, completing the symmetry with the
> > tense case?
>
> It's unintuitive for me, it doesn't really fit the surface form.
I see what you mean. But CLL is clear that brode is claimed, so I'll go
with that.
> > > > ca ro nu mi xagji kei mi klama lo zarci .e ba bo lo zdani
> > > > -> ca ro nu mi xagji kei da poi nu mi klama lo zarci zo'u ge da
> > > > fasnu gi ba da mi klama lo zdani
> > >
> > > ca ro nu mi xagji kei ge ko'a goi lo nu mi klama lo zarci cu fasnu gi ba
> > > ko'a mi klama lo zdani
> > >
> > > would work just as well, without introducing more events than were
> > > there in the original.
> >
> > But then we have a use of {lo} which isn't constant with respect to the
> > universal quantifier. I thought we didn't want to allow those?
>
> I would say it's a constant. It's the same event that happens more than
> once. Just as when I say "ca ro nu mi klama lo zarci kei mi penmi la djan"
> doesn't require it to be the same time-slice of John every time.
But if ko'a is a constant (kind of an) event, what does {ba ko'a mi
klama lo zdani} mean?
I understand the original sentence as having multiple pairs of goings,
with a time relationship claimed for each pair.
Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature