From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 27 08:59:12 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 15:59:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 88464 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 15:59:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 15:59:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 15:59:11 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17uxYs-0002mv-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:01:50 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17uxYG-0002mA-00; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:01:12 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-14.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.114]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17uxYD-0002lZ-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:01:09 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (unknown [213.121.71.237]) by mailbox-14.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A96DF49FBF for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:57:56 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:59:32 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <003d01c265d4$355c2aa0$eb86003e@default> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 1619 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Adam: > '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? I sort of object to this. This is because I already object to the rule for ku-less na, and in some ways I'd rather let it stand out as egregiously exceptional, and not compound the problem by making other tcita follow the same rules. Instead, I'd suggest always using {na ku} and never plain {na}. That or just ignore the special na-rule. --And.