Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0q5z8Y-00005JC; Tue, 24 May 94 19:15 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9734; Tue, 24 May 94 19:15:29 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9733; Tue, 24 May 1994 19:15:30 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3579; Tue, 24 May 1994 18:13:48 +0200 Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 17:08:33 +0100 Reply-To: Colin Fine Sender: Lojban list From: Colin Fine Subject: da'i and pe'o To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 946 Lines: 31 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