Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 09:36:27 EDT

In a message dated 00-06-30 23:54:09 EDT, xorxes writes:

<< > <<{na roroi} should be equipollent to {su'oroi na}. >>
>
>But this apparently not, since the negation boundary with {na} is at the
>leftmost of the prefix, so moving its actual place in the sentence does not
>affect its scope.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. "Not every time" should
be equipollent to "at least some time not". The whole
tense+negation or negation+tense complex is what goes leftmost
of the prefix, but the internal components keep their order.

>DeMorgan is not to be used (nor the corresponding thing
>with quantifiers). To make that move requires {naku} (Ch. 15, sec. 4, 
>etc.).

That is true with respect to the order of arguments, but when
both the tense and the negation are modifying the selbri, they
are also affected by order:

mi na roroi klama le zarci
= naku roroiku zo'u mi klama le zarci
= su'oroiku naku zo'u mi klama le zarci
= mi su'oroi na klama le zarci

>But {za'o} is not about expectations exactly, but rather about the contour 
>of
>events (treated systematically as though objective -- we rejected the
>intentional interpretation, which I am not sure would help here anyhow). >>

It makes sense, but it is not the way the Book reads, as far as I can work it 
out. Moving {naku} in from prenex to {na} can only take place if it is at 
the leftmost position. There is nothing about moving tense around at all or 
about tense in the prenex, though I suppose they come under some general rule 
about prenexing. Still, it does not appear, on a fairly careful reading, the 
{su'oroi naku zo'u} can be moved back to the prepredicate position. It would 
have to be as a unit, since moving the {su'oroi} in would take it past the 
{naku} and thus change it again and the {naku} taken separately can only move 
from the left end. This looks like a conflict of two intuitions and we need 
a call from Higher Up (yeah, right) or a clear-cut usage pattern (ditto). 
My first choice would be to lleave {na} as bridi negation wherever it turns 
up among the tenses, but I then start to feel the pull of the other and 
wobble.

<<And I thought we had agreed that {za'o} can be used
not only with processes that have well defined completions, but
with any event, including states.>>

True, and then may bring out some of the relation to "still," because time is 
often a "natural limit" for states -- they typically (are generally expected 
to) last for such and such a time and excess of that might well be "still" 
and {za'o} too. But does that fit "he still hasn't come/hasn't come yet"? I 
suppose it could be viewed as an over extension of the negative state, though 
that is not the way we officially conceptualize it (and that contrast between 
the official view -- what the words say -- and how we treat it in other words 
maybe part of the problem too).