From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Fri Sep 27 17:37:43 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 28 Sep 2002 00:37:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 80808 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2002 00:37:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2002 00:37:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Sep 2002 00:37:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17v5ei-000579-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:40:24 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17v5e0-00056j-00; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:39:40 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox-6.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.106]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17v5dw-00056D-00; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:39:36 -0700 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-70-133.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.70.133]) by mailbox-6.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0851D2925A; Sat, 28 Sep 2002 02:36:15 +0200 (DST) To: , Subject: [lojban] Re: interactions between tenses, other tenses, and NA Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 01:37:52 +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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020927175025.02db8ab0@pop.east.cox.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 X-archive-position: 1657 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 Noras: > la xorxes cusku di'e: > >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. > > "na" exporting to first in the prenex is necessary for "na go'i" to > work. "na go'i" MUST be the exact negation of the "xu" sentence to allow > answering questions to work. > > xu do roroi klama le zarci > ..i na go'i > You don't want "na go'i" to mean you always DON'T go to the store. But: (i) it could equally well be argued that the correct response would be {na ku go'i}, (ii) the desired interp of {na go'i} could equally well be handled as part of the rules for interpreting {go'i}, e.g. if the rule were that stuff in the {go'i} bridi has scope over the antecedent of {go'i}, e.g. A: xu do lo plise cu citka B: go'i ca ro djedi = "Every day I eat an apple" not = "There is an apple that I eat every day" Whereas in general the scope rules are very clear and simple, the go'i interpretation rules are (afaik) a bit seat-of-the-pants. So it seems like a bad idea to complicate the scope rules for the sake of the go'i interp rules. --And.