From araizen@newmail.net Thu Sep 26 19:09:26 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 02:09:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 43056 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 02:09:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 02:09:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 02:09:26 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17ukbo-0000Nh-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:12:00 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ukb9-0000NP-00; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:11:19 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il ([194.90.9.24]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ukb1-0000NE-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:11:12 -0700 Received: from default ([62.0.134.235]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.8 (built Jul 12 2002)) with SMTP id <0H3200JN4R9FGF@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 05:08:05 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 05:01:44 +0200 Subject: [lojban] interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA To: lojban-list@lojban.org Message-id: <003d01c265d4$355c2aa0$eb86003e@default> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal X-archive-position: 1603 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: araizen@newmail.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Adam Raizen Reply-To: araizen@newmail.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen On IRC, a discussion of the interaction between tenses in front of the selbri, floating tenses, and NA came up. I think that it is clear that if we can agree on a way to move all of these to the prenex, we can agree on their meaning. The Book, ch. 16, sec.9 (p.401) says: "To represent a bridi negation using a prenex, remove the ``na'' from before the selbri and place ``naku'' at the left end of the prenex. This form is called ``external bridi negation'', as opposed to ``internal bridi negation'' using ``na''. The prenex version of Example 9.1 is "9.2) naku zo'u la djan. klama It is not the case that: John comes. It is false that: John comes." On the other hand, ch. 10. sec. 13 (p. 234) says: "13.5) puku mi ba klama le zarci [past] I [future] go-to the market. Earlier, I was going to go to the market. "Here there are two tenses in the same bridi, the first floating free and specified by ``puku'', the second in the usual place and specified by ``ba''. They are considered cumulative in the same way as the two tenses in separate sentences of Example 13.4. Example 13.5 is therefore equivalent in meaning, except for emphasis, to: "13.6) mi puba klama le zarci I [past] [future] go-to the market. I was going to go to the market." and so it would seem that tenses are different, in that they get placed in the prenex in the order in which they appear relative to other tenses, whether or not they are directly in front of the selbri or floating, but NA directly in front of the selbri always moves to the left side of the prenex. Finally, the book mentions the interaction between tenses and NA in ch. 5, sec. 13 (p. 104): "Various combinations of tense and bridi negation cmavo are permitted. If both are expressed, either order is permissible with no change in meaning: "13.3) mi na pu klama le zarci mi pu na klama le zarci It is false that I went to the market. I didn't go to the market." If indeed tenses directly before the selbri do not go to the front of the prenex along with NA, then constructions such 'roroi na broda' are equivalent to 'na roroi broda', and both mean 'not always', rather than the first having the obvious and logical meaning of 'always not', i.e. 'never'. 'na' can be interspersed among tenses, and I thought that this was to allow constructions such as 'roroi na' = 'always not', 'ka'e na' = 'is capable of not', etc. If NA must move to the front of the prenex, but tenses don't, then what is the point of having NA interspersed with tenses? Therefore, I think that tenses work the same as NA, with everything directly in front of the selbri moving to the left side of the prenex in the same order as they were before the selbri, followed by sumti and floating tenses in the order they appear in the bridi. So I think that the example from chapter 10 is wrong, since it ignores the different scope that tenses directly before the selbri have, and the example from chapter five is referring to the interaction between 'na' and 'pu', where there really is no change in meaning, but with tenses like 'roroi', you need to consider the order that the tenses and the na appear in. Does anyone object to this? Could anyone *really* think that 'roroi na broda' means 'not always brodas' (i.e. 'sometimes doesn't broda')? Can we get a (quasi-)official pronouncement from Cowan? mu'o mi'e .adam.