2011/11/22 Jorge Llamb=EDas &l= t;jjllambias@gmai= l.com>

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Michael Turniansky
<mturniansky@gmail.com&= gt; wrote:
> =A0 Of course, in many cases where xorxes wants to use k= a'e for "it's
> possible",

It's not that I want to use "ka&= #39;e" for "it's possible", it's the other
way ar= ound, I want "it's possible", or "it could be", for= "ka'e".

So what you need to tell us is not how you'd say "it's pos= sible", but
how you'd understand for example "ka'e ku = no da klama".

=A0

=A0 Oh, I agree with you that, GIVEN that sentence, it seems to me to = mean what you said: "it's innately possible that no one comes"= ;.=A0I was simply saying that if in fact I was intending to convey "It= 's possible that no one is coming", I would have stated it as &quo= t;la'a cu'i no da klama" (or "no la'a cu'i da=A0k= lama")=A0I could=A0instead have used pe'i or=A0=A0ju'ocu'i= do show that it is me that it's uncertain, rather than some objective = standard.

=A0

> I'd personally choose to not use a CAhA at all, but la= 9;acu'i

Something can also be possible and extremely likel= y, or possible and
extremely unlikely. If "possible" correspon= ds to "su'o", then the la'a
scale corresponds to so'a/so'e/so'i/so'o/so'u.

=A0

=A0

=A0 la'acu'i ;-)

=A0

>(or
> go to full-blown brivla using cumki), while recognizin= g that it's not
> precisely the same part of speech, and perhaps = not the same logical
> implications, I think it does convey the same = meaning.

That was my point, "ka'e ku broda" has basically th= e same meanimg as
"cumki fa lo nu broda". Or more precisely, &= quot;ka'e" is "fi'o se cumki".

=A0

=A0

=A0=A0 But I disagree.=A0 If ka'e is "fi'o se cumki"= , then perforce ka'e would be a BAI, not a CAhA.=A0 That's why I= 9;m not sure it's entirely "legit" to have a=A0ka'e witho= ut an X1 (yes, I know grammatically, it's fine.=A0 Just my gut feeling = on the meaning). I guess I have to adjust my thinking to be one of "it= 's a statement on the achievabilty of the bridi as a whole, not just on= the X1's capability to bring it about (kakne)."=A0 So, I guess I&= #39;m in your camp as far as the meaning, if not the grammar.

=A0

> In any case, I
> wondered about the following utterance (I&= #39;m pretty sure xorxes would like it
> and understand it in the way= I intend): "va'o lo nu da'i=A0ka'e no'a kei mi ba
> co'e" (hint: it's a six=A0syllable in English).=A0 Is it = clear? (Probably less
> clear as "va'olonuda'ika'eno= 'akeimibaco'e" ;-) )

"If I can I will"?= I count five syllables.

=A0

=A0 Very true.=A0 But that's because when I was thinking about it,= I left in the elidable "then" -- "If I could, then I would&= quot; (cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DiAP9AF6DCu4&ob=3Dav2e=A0 = )=A0 Still, is there a good pseudo-Whorfian exlanation why it takes three t= imes longer to express that in lojban than English? (And is there a shorter= way to to translate it into lojban?)

=A0

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gjeyspa

=A0