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 m0rElkI-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 00:18 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0859; Tue, 06 Dec 94 00:19:11 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0856; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 00:19:08 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5531; Mon, 5 Dec 1994 23:15:44 +0100 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 17:11:56 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: cmavo hit list - lojbab responds X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199412022039.AA03938@access4.digex.net> from "Logical Language Group" at Dec 2, 94 03:39:56 pm Content-Length: 1833 Lines: 36 la lojbab. cusku di'e > But then you also have to realize the significance of "unrealized > potential" in evaluating truth claims when potentiality/actuality is > elliptical. "jelca" means both "burns" and "is flammable". I hasten to add, for the benefit of people who don't have the word "flammable" in their dialect, that it means the same as the word "inflammable". In the U.S. (and perhaps elsewhere), "flammable" is used on trucks to indicate that the contents are inflammable, after it was discovered that some people believe the "in-" prefix to be negative. As Quine says, semiliteracy is not a capital offense. A similar confusion persists between "ravel" and "unravel". > "pu'i > jelca" is unambiguously "burnt" - the "-able" interpretation is > eliminated. "nu'o jelca" is unambiguously "-able" with denial of the > actuality. Both thus correspond to significantly occurring features in > English (at least) that are strictly speaking not implied by other > features of the language (actually, I have seen some argument that > perfective "ba'o" and realized potential "pu'i" are close in meaning, > but this is only because since I am not a speaker of a perfective > language, I cannot easily think about perfective potentials as being > useful ("perfective of being flammable" seems a lot less useful than > "perfective of actually burning", No problem. Something is "ba'o nu'o jelca" if it can no longer burn, e.g. it has been sprayed with flame retardant. Something is "ba'o ca'a jelca" if it has finished burning and gone out. > so it would take a heavy context to > have me recognize the former unmarked - but then that is why we might > have ba'onu'o - to make such an oddity clear). -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.