From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 07:48:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 14:48:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 68010 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 14:48:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 14:48:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n8.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.92) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 14:48:53 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.148] by n8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2002 14:48:48 -0000 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:48:47 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200209270333.XAA19087@mail2.reutershealth.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 1152 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "jjllambias2000" X-Originating-IP: 200.49.74.2 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la djan cusku di'e > 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,=20 inserting > "na" before the selbri (mixed with tenses any way you like) is=20 always the > exact contradictory negation of the version without "na".=20=20 I doubt this can work in practice. {na} is consistently misused by almost everybody, so I suspect that the rule will be eventually generalized to order of appearance, {na} not excepted. > --=20 > John Cowan jcowan@r... www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan > "The exception proves the rule." Dimbulbs think: "Your=20 counterexample proves > my theory." Classicists think "'Probat' means 'tests': the=20 exception puts the > rule to the proof." But legal historians know it means "Evidence=20 for an > exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not=20 excepted from." In Spanish the saying is "la excepci=F3n que confirma la regla", so the classisists' version is not possible for us. (The legal historians' version is more difficult to explain to the dimbulbs.) mu'o mi'e xorxes=20