From - Mon Mar 10 10:20:37 1997 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Date: Mon Mar 10 10:20:37 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: modals tagging selbri question... X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1850 Message-ID: >But with modals it works almost the other way around; you can >think of the selbri as modifying *them*, in a way. "mi ka'e >citka" describes a capability; "mi pu'o citka" describes >something that is fixin' to happen (which might not actually >come to pass); "mi na'e citka" describes something >other than eating. I think the modals are all pretty >consistent this way: "mi citka" is not necessarily >a kind of eating. 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. mi ka'e citka = mi kakne lenu mi citka mi pu'o citka = lenu mi citka cu fasnu gi'e balvi gi'e na purci gi'e na cabna (more or less) Alas Chris, "na'e" isn't a modal really, and IS interpreted according to tanru rules (unlike na), so you may have been misleading in that remark. On the other hand it is like some of the modals capable of modifying the semantics of the unmarked statement, so perhaps it has some modal aspects. 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). lojbab---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/"