[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/8/2002 2:51:40 PM Central Daylight Time, nessus@hidden.email writes: << That of the tenseless bridi (that it is true in some >> I take it that "not necessarily" refers to "the whole reduces to the second part." But, if the first part holds in no tense related part, it surely holds in no past one, and whatever is the case in the future tense related worlds is irrelevant to the claim that Past([bridi]). So, in the example given, the whole reduces -- with the anaphora filled out -- to the second conjunct. The {na} negation would, on your example, give a disjunction of negations, only the second of which would be relevant because, if the first were right, the second would be also and so a collapse again. Your 2 case -- negating only the first clause -- is open to some dispute, hinging on where the possibility lies in the ultimate underlying claim. I take it to be outside all else, and so would have the whole be omething like "[bridi] need not happen but it actually did in the past" (which, for most claims, reduces to the second again -- with a mysterious negative sign around there somewhere: unless it is the "not [bridi]" of the first part that is now anaphorized -- which would give "[bridi] need not happen and indeed did not at some point in the past," still reducing to the second element). If you are of the mind that possibility goes inside negtion, then selection 2 is either a contadiction or a reduncancy, depending on how the anaphora works: "either it never happens but it did in the past" or "it never happens and it did not in the past." The 3 position, as a reading of {pu[bridi]} with a negation in it, amounts either to "it happens but not ever in the past" or "it happens but not always in the past," depending on the relative scopes of {pu} and {na}. It does have the advantage of actually saying something more than either part taken alone, though this could be done quite nicely with {na'e} rather than {na}. << > So, what is current usage (if any): to deny (ko'a pu broda} do we > use {ko'a pu naku broda} or {koa puroroi /roroi pu naku broda} (both parse, > but the break suggests that I want the first "throughout the whole past ko'a > does not broda" Yes, I want that one too. (but note that this is over specified compared to my (2) case, as you explicitly state what is negated in bridi). >> I do? Oh, you mean (?) that it is being broda that is denied of ko'a throughout the past, rather than what? That it is ko'a that is denied to be a broda thoughout the past (suggesting that there is someone else that is a past broda?)? I take both of these just to be denying {ko'a broda} at every past moment (more or less our 3, without the first conjunct). << >rather than "it is always the case that ko'a brodaed in the > past," which requires infinite past time at least)? Sorry, I'm lost. Did you mean 'not brodaed'? >> Oops, should be "it is always the case that ko'a did not broda in the past" (if that helps). << The correction is not possible at least in the Naturalistic sense as the CLL, as noted earlier, explicitly defines the semantic of {punai} equivalent as the one of {pu na}. >> Although the terms "Naturalist" and "Prescriptivist" get tossed around loosely here, I would think it is exactly the naturalists who can effect this change by using the expressions this way, whatever CLL says (which is admitted to be a mistake from the larger pov). |