Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 17:12:03 -0500
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Introduction, and zutse/se sutse
Message-ID: <20011112171203.A29619@cc96364-a.hwrd1.md.home.com>
Reply-To: jspickes@etrademail.com
References: <20011112133346.A8718@cc96364-a.hwrd1.md.home.com> <3BF04115.8030009@reutershealth.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3BF04115.8030009@reutershealth.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i
From: jspickes@etrademail.com
Content-Length: 1299
Lines: 27

On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 04:37:25PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> What you are missing is that not only is tense optional in Lojban, so is
> "potentiality".  da se zutse may mean either "that is sat on" (any
> tense) but also "that could be sat on".  If something cannot under
> any circumstances be sat on, then it is not a "se zutse".
> This distinction can be made explicit with the cmavo "ca'a"
> (actually is) and "ka'e" (capable of being).

.ua ki'e

This appears to be exactly my problem.  This is something I hadn't picked up
in my (certainly nonthorough) readings of the grammar and draft textbook.  I
was interpreting everything with an implicit ca'a, unless ka'e was
specified.  In fact, the sentences in the learning materials I've read seem
to also translate lojban to english as if ca'a was implied.  I guess this
was probably done to avoid confusing the reader.  Thanks for the
explanation.  That clears up a lot in my mind.

This leads to another question, which I think I may already know the answer
to..  If broda can mean either ca'a broda or ka'e broda, then what can lo
broda mean?  Is ca'a the default when lo is used?  If not then I think the
usual translation of lo broda as "something(s) nonparticular that really is
broda" is rather misleading.  

co'o mi'e djan.