From - Tue Mar 11 10:33:22 1997
Reply-To: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Date: Tue Mar 11 10:33:22 1997
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
X-UIDL: 858093601.002
From: "Jorge J. Llambias" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: modals tagging selbri question...
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: U
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  2643
Message-ID: <8ypJQKpEf1J.A.mqH.Vz0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>


la lojbab cusku di'e

> Indeed, one way to think about modals logically is that they constitute a
> totally different logical claim that is being abrreviated for purposes
> of efficient language.  The nature of the abbreviation is sometimes tied to
> the type of modal.

I agree with the concept, but I disagree with both examples:

> mi ka'e citka =
> mi kakne lenu mi citka

Since Lojban is not a subject-predicate language, the sumti in x1
should not be given preferential status like that. "ka'e" does not
give a property of x1, but of the whole bridi. So I would say it's
more like:

        mi ka'e citka =
        le nu mi citka cu cumki
        The event "I eat" can happen.

> mi pu'o citka =
> lenu mi citka cu fasnu gi'e balvi gi'e na purci gi'e na cabna
> (more or less)

Even assuming you meant to expand {mi capu'o citka} it doesn't work,
because pu'o is not about time. I prefer something like:

        mi pu'o citka =
        le nu mi citka cu faubre
        The event "I eat" is/was/will be ready to happen.

And here's my take for the rest of the ZAhOs:

        mi ba'o citka =
        le nu mi citka cu mulno
        The event "I eat" is complete.

        mi ca'o citka =
        le nu mi citka cu ranji
        The event "I eat" continues.

        mi co'a citka =
        le nu mi citka cu cfari
        The event "I eat" is starting.

        mi co'u citka =
        le nu mi citka cu selfambi'o
        The event "I eat" is becoming terminated.

        mi de'a citka =
        le nu mi citka cu se dicra
        The event "I eat" is interrupted.

(I don't like that one much, because it implies that there is an
interrupter, which de'a doesn't. Any better ideas? Could something
with "denpa" be made to work?)

        mi di'a citka =
        le nu mi citka cu se toldicra
        The event "I eat" is resumed.

(Same problem there.)

        mi mo'u citka =
        le nu mi citka cu mulbi'o
        The event "I eat" is completed.

        mi za'o citka =
        le nu mi citka cu dusra'i
        The event "I eat" excessively continues.


> But then it is quite possible for any tanru that is a "broda brode" to not
> necessarily imply that "brode" alone is true.  Not all tanru are implied
> restrictions on the modificand, even though this is the norm that is
> assumed by convention.  (See the many language examples in the refgrammar
> chapter on tanru for some other kinds).

Those are examples in other languages. Is there any example in Lojban
of something like that? It would certainly be abnormal.

co'o mi'e xorxes