From sentto-44114-1826-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Sat Jan 22 02:22:28 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 6877 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2000 02:22:27 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2000 02:22:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 12792 invoked by uid 40001); 22 Jan 2000 02:23:54 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 12789 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2000 02:23:53 -0000 Received: from hi.egroups.com (208.48.218.11) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 22 Jan 2000 02:23:53 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-1826-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.35] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jan 2000 02:23:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 3397 invoked from network); 22 Jan 2000 02:23:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.10.35 with QMQP; 22 Jan 2000 02:23:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.237.176) by 10.1.10.27 with SMTP; 22 Jan 2000 02:23:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 32682 invoked by uid 0); 22 Jan 2000 02:23:47 -0000 Message-ID: <20000122022346.32681.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.50 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:23:46 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.50] To: lojban@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 18:23:46 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: [lojban] Subjunctive? Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Jorge Llambias" >How does one express the subjunctive mood in Lojban? Or does one >not do so? One way is to use the cmavo va'o, of selma'o BAI, accompanied sometimes by the cmavo da'i of selma'o UI. >I've seen 'puba' used for 'was/were going to'. >If one says in English "I was going to go to the store." it implies >that the event did not actually occur (usually). However, it >is my understanding that in Lojban 'puba' would imply no such >thing. This isn't the subjunctive, but... "puba" has been translated as "was/were going to", but as you say it is not a good translation. I can't really think of any examples where composite tenses like puba, pupu, bapu, etc. would be useful. What you want for your example is pupu'o: mi pupu'o klama le zarci I was about to go to the store. There is no implication here that the going eventually took place. All tense+aspect combinations are very useful: caca'o citka = is now eating puca'o citka = was eating baca'o citka = will be eating capu'o citka = is about to eat, is going to eat pupu'o citka = was about to eat, was going to eat bapu'o citka = will be about to eat, "will be going to eat" caba'o citka = has now eaten puba'o citka = had eaten baba'o citka = will have eaten Before these aspectuals (ca'o, ba'o, pu'o) were introduced to the language, these compound English tenses were translated by chained Lojban tenses, but doing that now that we have the aspectuals is not really a very good idea. >Would the following capture the english meaning?: > >co'anai ku mi puba klama le zarci I don't think co'anai is grammatical, although I think it should be grammatical, but then I don't think it should mean what you want here... :) Back to the subjunctive: >Another example, how would I say "If I had a million dollars, I'd >be rich." in Lojban? > >I can say: > >ganai mi ponse le megdo be le rupnu gi mi ricfu > >which I would translate as: > >If I have a million dollars then I am rich. > >Which is subtlely different. It is actually radically different, and it doesn't really say what you want. I do not have a million dollars, and therefore this two sentences are both true and utterly uninformative: ganai mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu gi mi ricfu "If I have a million dollars then I am rich." ganai mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu gi mi pindi "If I have a million dollars then I am poor." Both true. Both uninformative. >Do others think this is a useful distinction, or do I just >have english on the brain? What we want to say is something more like: va'oda'i le nu mi ponse lo megdo be lo'e rupnu kei mi ricfu "Under the hypothetical conditions that I have (would have) a million dollars, I am (would be) rich." That's how I see it anyway. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests! Sign up for eLerts at: Click Here ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com