From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Jul 01 08:06:06 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20637 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2000 15:06:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Jul 2000 15:06:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.155) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Jul 2000 15:06:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 4640 invoked by uid 0); 1 Jul 2000 15:06:05 -0000 Message-ID: <20000701150605.4639.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.155.235 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 01 Jul 2000 08:06:05 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.155.235] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Opposite of za'o Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 08:06:05 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" > 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 la pycyn cusku di'e >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 be strange that you could go from the first to the second line but not back from the second to the first line. > 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. I think the rule should be that you have to move the whole thing from the left of the prenex to the left of the prepredicate or back. And if you only move a part from the prenex it has to be from the right end of the complex, and if you only move part from the prepredicate, it has to be from the left end. This seems like the natural generalization to the rule that the Book gives for {na} only. >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). I doubt that there is much informative usage. >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. I think {na} is unintuitive enough as it is with regard to its scope over preceding arguments. If we add that it has to have scope over preceding tenses within the selbri tcita it becomes completely weird, and also we'd be removing the capability for a very useful distinction. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com