From araizen@newmail.net Sat Feb 5 11:34:22 2000 X-Digest-Num: 355 Message-ID: <44114.355.1931.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 21:34:22 +0200 From: "Adam Raizen" Subject: RE: Re: Subjunctives la xorxes cusku di'e > From: "Jorge Llambias" > > la adam cusku di'e > > >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. > > I'm not sure why you say you disagree. I agree with what > you say, which means that va'o by itself, without da'i, > already tags a hypothetical. > Maybe I misunderstood you, but I had thought that you had just said that you accepted that "va'o" without "da'i" claims the main bridi with the tagged sumti as its environment, whereas I was saying that the main bridi does not necessarily occur if what is tagged by "va'o" doesn't occur. Adam Raizen araizen@newmail.net ------------------- "Oom, Shmoom!" --David Ben-Gurion