From araizen@newmail.net Tue Feb 12 17:05:52 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 01:05:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 39847 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 01:05:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 01:05:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mxout1.netvision.net.il) (194.90.9.20) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 01:05:51 -0000 Received: from default ([62.0.180.206]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GRG00C6I5PPSV@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:05:50 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:02:18 +0200 Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-id: <016001c1b42a$c4458100$ceb4003e@default> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <134.90ae651.29955228@aol.com> From: Adam Raizen X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13250 la pycyn. cusku di'e > > > But that is not what {mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama} means. > > > > No, but it's the meaning of 'mi pacna le du'u kau/kau'u ko'a klama' or > > 'le du'u ko'a klama zo'u mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama'. > > > > Butmthat was not what you gave as an explication (and I am not sure that it > IS what these expressions mean either). Yes, it was, that's how I defined it. > <> What you want is > > for {sei pacna} to be an epistemic particle: "my evidence for the > claim {ko'a > > klama} is my hope that it be true" (forcing {ko'a klama} into retro > future > > tense, I suppose). > > I'm not sure what 'retro future tense' is, but the 'ko'a klama' in our > sentence could be in any tense> > > English "will have -N" -- a time before some future time. The {ko'a klama} > can't be in just any tense, since hoping requires that the object of the hope > not yet be established one way or the other. The event may be in any > temporal relation to utterance, but, since its occurrence is not yet known, > it is safest to use the indeterminate form. Hoping requires that the hoper not know how the object of hope came out or will come out, but it can still occur at any time. "I hope that he rememebered to go to the store yesterday" makes perfect sense. > Is an epistemic particle the same as an evidential, like 'ti'e', > 'ka'u', etc.? I think that the evidentials could be treated in the > same way, and I can see how I could think of 'possibly' as an > evidential, so I'll accept that.> > > Yes, but I am not sure that "possibly" can be taken as an evidential, except > in a rather extended sense ("I can tell it is not contradictory" or some > such). It would still be a part of the {i} conjoined forms in logical > reading. Maybe as an evidential only in the extended sense, but the true evidentials and 'possibly' can be analyzed the same way: 'sei cumki ko'a klama' --> 'le nu kau'u ko'a klama cu cumki' and 'ti'e ko'a klama' --> 'sei mi te cusku ko'a klama' --> 'mi te cusku le se du'u kau'u ko'a klama' > I am not sure that {li'a} and {sa'e} should be called metalinguistic, though > I suppose the case can be made -- complete with the minor arguments about > whther it really is clear or precise. Has anybody figure out a way to use > {je'unai} (or even {je'u} -- now there is a useless metalinguistic form, > surely) meaningfully -- aside from their value as 1 -place logical > connectives for tautology and contradiction? If you don't consider 'li'a' and 'sa'e' metalinguistic, what is? Aren't they quintessential metalinguistic operators? mu'o mi'e .adam.