From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Tue May 24 12:35:01 1994
Message-Id: <199405241634.AA04283@nfs1.digex.net>
Date: Tue May 24 12:35:01 1994
Reply-To: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@bradford.ac.uk>
Subject:      da'i and pe'o
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

Two points about particular cmavo:

1) I believe that Lojban needs an irrealis marker (as used
in many non-European languages). I further believe that we
already have it  - da'i - but that the translation 'supposing'
is a little narrow.

I suggest for example that

mi djica lenu da'i vitke le mamta

and

mi djica lenu da'inai vitke le mamte

though neither asserts that I did/will visit my mother,
nevertheless indicate discursively in the first case that
the visit has not taken place but in the second that it has.
But I do not find 'supposing' a very useful translation of
what I intend the first sentence to mean - I would prefer
either 'irrealis' or (if that term is too technical)
'counter-factual'.

Or am I off beam?

2) I think the keyword for pe'o as "fore mex operator"
is unfortunate considering that 'operator' is elsewhere
used with a specific meaning, and that ku'e and fu'a do not
use the word in their keywords.

        Colin