[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
| In a message dated 10/9/2002 2:36:17 AM Central Daylight Time, nessus@hidden.email writes: << BTW, do you think {na'e} works to negate a tense tag? >> I think it ought do, in any case -- and I think it does (and occasionaly very usefully, too, for just the purose suggested - some time but not the mentioned one.) << 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" >> The quesion I asked was not rhetorical; I do not know how these things work either officially or practically. Though I have preferences. I would use {na'e pu} for the first one, which parses correctly insofar as parses tell real connections. For the other I might try {na'e pu roroi}, which also parses with what looks like the right connection. Which brings me back to a central question, what are the relative scopes -- if any? The way I was setting it up (and this seems generally right) the scopes are in order as written with the actual exception of {na} and the possible of PU. But I am now, covertly, suggesting that PU itself (or some important subclass of it) is not quantifier and that the quantification part is done by a(n implicit) {-roi}, which, in this case at least [see other thread], is positioned correctly. But PU has scope in any case and so we need to consider where it lies vis a vis {na}. And then I am at a loss, since either way to go leads to some problems -- and solves others. Someday, we'll have this all spelled out explicitly and can manipulate various scenarios to see which one seems to be right for usage or elgance. |