From araizen@newmail.net Thu Jan 31 13:31:50 2002
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 31 Jan 2002 21:31:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 47881 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2002 21:31:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172)
  by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Jan 2002 21:31:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO enigma.barak.net.il) (212.150.48.99)
  by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2002 21:31:49 -0000
Received: from out.newmail.net ([10.10.11.11]) by enigma.barak.net.il
          (InterMail vK.4.03.00.00 201-232-121 license 5444ddd44659357c6c93343e0ce38507)
          with SMTP id <20020131213253.FSWO1829.enigma@out.newmail.net>
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:32:53 +0200
Received: from default ([62.0.183.196]) by out.newmail.net ; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:32:53 +0200
Message-ID: <007601c1aa9e$c9e3f8c0$c4b7003e@default>
To: "lojban" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <sc595324.098@gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:32:26 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
From: "Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669
X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13134

la .and. cusku di'e

> I agree that "sei cumki" is the UI-like way to say "possibly".
>
> However, what you describe as 'shifting focus' is actually in some
cases
> a shift also in truth conditions. The 'logical' way to defocalize
superstructure
> would be to leave the logical structure in standard selbri + sumti
form, and
> to indicate (de)focalization by means of UI.

In what way can it shift truth conditions? The only possibility I can
think of would be in cases where the selbrivla does not claim the
subsentence, as in 'cumki'. If you claim that 'sei cumki mi klama'
claims that mi klama, then clearly that has a different truth value
than 'le nu mi klama cu cumki'; however, there are many UI which
change the truth value, so I don't see any reason why 'sei' clauses
must be different. Also, I consider 'sei cumki mi klama' to be the
same as 'le nu kau mi klama cu cumki' (using 'kau' for the
focus-marking UI), at least until someone objects or comes up with
something better.

Is there another way that truth conditions can be affected?

mu'o mi'e .adam.