From jcowan@reutershealth.com Thu Sep 26 20:25:51 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 03:25:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 19082 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 03:23:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 03:23:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 03:23:33 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17ullY-0000ax-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:26:08 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ulkv-0000aa-00; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:25:29 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [65.246.141.151] (helo=mail2.reutershealth.com) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17ulks-0000aQ-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:25:26 -0700 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (IDENT:cowan@[10.65.117.21]) by mail2.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA19087; Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200209270333.XAA19087@mail2.reutershealth.com> Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:21:18 +4400 Subject: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA To: araizen@newmail.net Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <003d01c265d4$355c2aa0$eb86003e@default> from "Adam Raizen" at Sep 27, 2002 05:01:44 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 1605 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: John Cowan Reply-To: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Profile: john_w_cowan Adam Raizen scripsit: > '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? There is no *point*, but it's not forbidden either. > Therefore, I think that tenses work the same as NA, That was not the intent. > 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? Yes, that is what it means. The principle is that everything is exported to the prenex in the order in which it (first) appears, *except* NA, which is always exported to the very beginning. In that way, inserting "na" before the selbri (mixed with tenses any way you like) is always the exact contradictory negation of the version without "na". (Exception: when the selbri is a GOhA that has a "na" semantically embedded in it, in which case the added "na" is pleonastic.) To say what you want to say with "roroi na", use "roroi naku" instead. Quasi-officially yours, -- John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan "The exception proves the rule." Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves my theory." Classicists think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts the rule to the proof." But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."