From lojban-beginners+bncCNf8pM-bDBCF0r3tBBoEafRR2A@googlegroups.com Wed Apr 20 16:15:32 2011 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QCgcK-0002xZ-D9; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:15:32 -0700 Received: by qyk36 with SMTP id 36sf1857532qyk.16 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:15:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1z7hA45A2Xw/QAQ2Qr+zVBEIqJqIxtn3dEaTpdwfbz4=; b=H5FJ6NWbJfDuR5+h+3j4zI/MKT29tdaBqfWNIGEMYHl9kcJp6SqqDiE/fvshizYMfH VRSy5U82AjbG9VDZLaChgs8jqO0v9tVbsIoLS37y4yVlF3n+gyJ03M+NdjDqZBm4GEdp 37tTGmh4MXGTqgQ2hkx5xGDjUdDS7A8aX1ruY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=AaAV5MFr5fUh63WwAOcD+nzesOtVuEdh4J7p0aNMtnDm8S+AWdF7CNrRdFnCideQrL 8On1mfcMuMaHhNhF6cO4YpxBk7kRiaGqXAPsIrhK5zI+wLM7jm+IMmaCvsacF/4XZvrX RlK0fWexI88De0YIa6PFHhFhUiEro5EQWXtnw= Received: by 10.224.208.135 with SMTP id gc7mr689913qab.53.1303341317342; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:15:17 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.219.73 with SMTP id ht9ls321453qab.7.gmail; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.9.144 with SMTP id l16mr444190qal.26.1303341316621; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.183.200 with SMTP id ch8msqab; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.115.70 with SMTP id jm6mr6110vdb.11.1303336891366; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.115.70 with SMTP id jm6mr6108vdb.11.1303336891354; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f178.google.com (mail-qy0-f178.google.com [209.85.216.178]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o28si195901vbn.0.2011.04.20.15.01.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.178; Received: by qyk2 with SMTP id 2so829080qyk.16 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:01:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.105.162 with SMTP id t34mr5784694qco.14.1303336890427; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:01:30 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.182.209 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:01:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <7e5bdd6d-4bb8-415e-b50f-6a0d3e5454b4@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:01:30 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Why is CAhA a tense/modal? From: tijlan To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paskios@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 20 April 2011 16:03, Thomas Jack wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:33 AM, tijlan wrote: >> {ka'e} is semantically close more to {cumki} than to {kakne}: >> >> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ka%27e >> >> {lo plise ka'e farlu} means "It's possible that apples fall" (a >> possibility whose realization doesn't hinge on volition) rather than >> "Apples are capable of falling" (a capability whose realization hinges >> on volition). > > How does volition fit in here? Apples are innately capable of falling > just like all other material objects, even in a universe with no > volition. By "capable" I was referring to the definition of {kakne}, which is what I was comparing {cumki} with. Arguably, kakne1 is a conscious agent (analogous to gasnu1) who is capable of bringing about kakne2, and that's where I think the unique utility of {kakne} most resides, i.e. {kakne} is more useful if kakne1 is more than {lo jai cumki}, an entity potentially involved in a potential event. kakne1, whether or not we call it "volitional", must be some sort of agent. {lo plise cu kakne lo nu farlu} doesn't necessarily mean that the apple itself can fall; it means that the apple can cause a falling of something. The usual sense of "apples can fall" would be more accurately expressed as {lo nu lo plise cu farlu cu cumki} or {lo plise ka'e farlu}. (That {ka'e} morphologically derived from {kakne} but semantically rests on {cumki} while these two selbri aren't exactly interchangebale, is confusing, but that's how Lojban currently stands.) > I wonder how your sense of {ka'e}'s meaning squares with the CLL's: > http://dag.github.com/cll/10/19/ =97 note in particular the claim there > that {ro datka ka'e flulimna} is true even though some ducks actually > can't swim, and that {la djan. ka'e viska} might be true even if John > has been blind from birth. According to how this CAhA is actually defined, {ro datka ka'e flulimna} means {lo nu ro datka cu flulimna cu cumki}, which I'm not sure would be true if there already is an actuality where some ducks can't swim. What's meant by this example is presumably that every organism with the duck genome has the innate capability to cause the event of itself swimming, {ro datka cu kakne lo nu vo'a flulimna}. {da ka'e broda} can't exactly substitue for {da kakne lo nu broda}. > If this is {cumki}, mustn't the cumki2's be counterfactual conditions? > Is {cumki} meant to be used with counterfactual conditions? I don't think so. {cumki} can describe a future possibility, something that's neither counterfactual nor factual at a particular point in time. {(da'i) lo nu mi ba'o fengu cu cumki lo nu mi pu na'e citka lo plise} (I would have possibly been angry if I hadn't eaten the apple earlier) is a counterfactual possibility, while {lo nu mi ba fengu cu cumki lo nu mi ca na'e citka lo plise} (I might / would / will possibly be angry if I didn't / don't eat the apple now.) is not counterfactual. (Note that cumki1 in either case is still a possibility even if the condition is met. cumki2 qualifies cumki1 as more than an entirely impossible event (as true in at least one possible world) and less than an actual event.) mu'o --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Lojban Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@= googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.