From araizen@newmail.net Fri Feb 08 04:46:51 2002
Return-Path: <araizen@newmail.net>
X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 8 Feb 2002 12:46:51 -0000
Received: (qmail 91544 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2002 12:46:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171)
  by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Feb 2002 12:46:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.barak.net.il) (212.150.150.43)
  by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Feb 2002 12:46:50 -0000
Received: from out.newmail.net (54.150.212.in-addr.arpa [212.150.54.158] (may be forged))
	by mail.barak.net.il (8.11.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id g18Cnor19868
	for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:49:50 +0200 (IST)
Received: from default ([62.0.180.82]) by out.newmail.net ; Fri, 08 Feb 2002 03:07:09 +0200
Message-ID: <00b601c1b03c$ebb94b00$52b4003e@default>
To: <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
References: <123.b251a59.298eaf25@aol.com>
Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 03:06:53 +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: 13199

la pycyn. cusku di'e

> > It is a metalinguistic comment on the main bridi, and in this case
it
> > tells you that that bridi is not being claimed, but it is still
the
> > topic of discussion.
> >
>
> 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'.

>  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.

> That does seem plausible, maybe the most plausible
> reading for the {ko'a klama i mi pacna la'e di'u} version -- with
appropriate
> play-down of the second part, though the epistemic ground is always
a
> (usually minor) potential point of contention.

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.

mu'o mi'e .adam.