Subject: Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA

From: "jjllambias2000" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:48:47 -0000

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, 
inserting
> "na" before the selbri (mixed with tenses any way you like) is 
always the
> exact contradictory negation of the version without "na".  

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.

> -- 
> John Cowan jcowan@r... 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."

In Spanish the saying is "la excepción 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