From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Jan 29 12:57:09 2000
X-Digest-Num: 348
Message-ID: <44114.348.1878.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:57:09 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Re: Subjunctives


la and cusku di'e

> > va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu
> > Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
> > In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.
>
>First, don't you need to have {da'i} after {va'o}? Else your sentence is 
>basically saying that you are rich and you have a
>million, where the having a million is the conditions in which you are 
>rich.

Yes, I accept that. I admit that I often just use {va'o}
because I take it as if {da'i} was a part of it. I don't
think {va'o} without {da'i} is all that useful.

>Second, if you do have the {da'i}, you still can't get the "every world" 
>versus "some world" distinction, which was the point I intended in my 
>original contribution to this thread.

Yes I can! :)

I thought about this just after having sent my answers to you
and then I forgot to write about it. It would be something
like this:

va'oda'i lo nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ka'e seljibysti
Under some conditions where I have a mill., I can retire.
In some world where I have a mill., I can retire.

So, {va'o le nu} or {va'o ro lo nu} for "would be" and
{va'o lo nu} = {va'o su'o lo nu} for "might be".

co'o mi'e xorxes

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com