From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 27 12:53:24 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 19:53:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 69552 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 19:50:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 19:50:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailbox-3.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.103) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 19:50:41 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-71-29.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.71.29]) by mailbox-3.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D651914C for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:50:39 +0200 (DST) To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 20:52:15 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: > 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. Perhaps we should make a conscious decision not to correct such misuse, so as to encourage the 'correct' rule to die from neglect? --And.