[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab:
> At 03:49 PM 1/6/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >It was established some weeks or months ago (by reference to CLL) that
> >only na is subject to this eccentric rule of interpretation, hence the
> >general antipathy to the rule
>
> Was selbri tense exporting explicitly discussed (either in this discussion
> or in CLL)?
Yes. It was raised by Adam, who had assumed that tense behaved like na.
> There WILL be problems if your try to export the negation and
> not the tense:
>
> mi pu na klama le zarci
> mi na pu klama le zarci
> should mean different things, and not using the same exporting rule for
> tense would lead them to both be exported as
> naku puku mi klama le zarci
That's right. And {ro broda pu na brode} is {na ku ro broda pu ku brode}.
> The exporting rule and the free movement rule are a contradiction in CLL
>
> Chapter 15, 7.1/7.2 say that
> mi napu klama le zarci
> means the same as
> mi punai klama le zarci
> but this would violate the export rule if selbri tense is handled
> differently from selbri negation
>
> puku mi na klama le zarci
> is not
> punaiku mi klama le zarci
> because of the differential exporting rule
Don't {mi na pu klama} and {mi pu nai klama} both mean {na ku mi pu ku
klama}, according to CLL?
> 8.4-8.7 exemplify the multiple ordering of tenses and negations and a note
> indicates the possibility that there could be a semantic difference in such
> ordering. This would, it seems to me override generalizing the example of
> freely moving tense from Chapter 10, 1.2-1.5 which does NOT deal with
> possible interactions with NA
>
> I think with tenses and negations in a connected (ije) sentence, the
> necessities would be made even clearer. But that would require delving
> into Chapter 16, and I generally put my foot in my mouth when I get into
> that sort of stuff
>
> Chapter 16 does not in fact, as far as I can tell, discuss exporting tense
> to the prenex, only sumti and negators. Thus I think the situation is
> officially underspecified, and the implications of the above indicate that
> selbri tense is NOT precisely the same as free-floating tenseKU when it
> comes to mixing with negations and exporting
Except for the Ch 8 note, I don't perceive the underspecification, but
I am not expert on Scripture, and don't really want to be either. AFAIK,
the rules for scope are very clear, and the only problem is that na has
this godawful exceptional behaviour (which John blamed on you!), which
I'm certain will be abolished in AL.
--And.