From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 09:03:22 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 16:03:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 27245 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 16:03:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 16:03:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.86) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 16:03:17 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.130] by n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2002 16:03:16 -0000 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:03:15 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20020927155402.GA28188@allusion.net> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 891 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 djorden cusku di'e > It's actually pretty simple: there's no need to do real thinking > about the sentence: > - if you can rephrase it as "It is false that: foo", the na is fine. I call that real thinking, and that't exactly what I do to analyze it. But I don't want to have to rephrase a sentence in order to understand it. I don't want to have to translate it in the first place. > - if not, you can make it a "naku" and get position defined scope > - also consider a cmavo from NAhE, which is frequently better anyway. Yes, that's a possibility, not use {na}. But you still have to cope with other people's use. First you have to figure out what they actually said , and then you have to decide how likely it is that they might have meant something else. (Although often you can figure out what they meant independently of what they actually said.) mu'o mi'e xorxes