[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
> > 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?)?
Yes, that was the intended meaning, and I agree that was very badly
expressed. I basically agree with all you say from a logical, that is
explicit semantic, point of view. My point was to suggest that a separation
of tense indication as "meta-inforamtion", which I grossly approximated
with an and-conjunction, could be an elegant tool, providing the existence
of adequate grammatical constructs, to emphasize the implicit semantic:
in the case of negation, the emphasis is put on what is "the most negated",
and induces the listener to derived true sub-statement from the negated one.
{na'e} is the answer in most cases, but its scope may over-specified the
focus of my negation.
BTW, do you think {na'e} works to negate a tense tag? And also I am not sure
of the relative scope of {na} and {pu} if any. Actually I am not sure how
to translate your two examples:
"it happens but not ever in the past" and "it happens but not always in the
past"
-- Lionel