From araizen@newmail.net Sat Jan 29 14:10:47 2000
X-Digest-Num: 348
Message-ID: <44114.348.1881.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 00:10:47 +0200
From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>
Subject: RE: Re: Subjunctives

la xorxes cusku di'e

> 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.
> 

I disagree. It seems to me that the x1 of vanbi is the geneal way to 
express places like the x3 of binxo. In other words, "loi bisli cu 
binxo loi jaclitki le nu glare" doesn't necessarily mean that any ice 
actually becomes liquid water, if it never gets hot enough. Likewise 
if "vanbi" is the main bridi. Even when you use the tag "va'o" as in 
the above sentence, the main bridi is only being claimed under the 
condition of the tagged sumti, as if an "under conditions" place was 
added to the main bridi.

As another possible translation, how about

le nu mi ponse su'opaki'oki'o rupnu cu nibli le nu mi ricfu

co'o mi'e adam



Adam Raizen
araizen@newmail.net
-------------------
"Oom, Shmoom!"
--David Ben-Gurion