From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 07:48:54 2002
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
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: <an1r4f+ohdn@eGroups.com>
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" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
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