From pycyn@aol.com Fri Feb 01 06:30:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 1 Feb 2002 14:30:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 89651 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 14:30:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2002 14:30:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 14:30:03 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id r.17e.2f910c1 (4230) for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:29:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <17e.2f910c1.298c0049@aol.com> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:29:29 EST Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_17e.2f910c1.298c0049_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13150 --part1_17e.2f910c1.298c0049_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/1/2002 7:02:45 AM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > I'm switching 'a'o' to 'sei > mi pacna' in order to avoid the additudinal issues, without claiming > that they are equivalent. I wasn't claiming that 'sei mi pacni ko'a > klama' has the same truth conditions as 'ko'a klama', but that it has > the same truth conditions as 'mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama'. > Well, either {sei mi pacna} functions like {a'o} or it functions to give {ko'a klama i mi pacna la'e di'u}. Neither of these is quite {mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama}. The first has no truth value, the second has two, one of them the same as {mi pacna le du'u...} the other just that of {ko'a klama}. The argument seems to be which it is, with the Refgram and the first examples on the {a'o} side, you on the second -- or maybe a third -- side (to deal with the focus issue). I'm inclined to think it depends upon the brivla involved and in the case of {pacna} it goes to the {a'o} side. Little though I like {ka'u'u} I think it is wiser to use these than ones with established -- though limited -- usage when you are experimenting. In this case, I expect that it might be possible to actually use {ka'u} in the way you intend without conflicts, once the need and pattern were settled. --part1_17e.2f910c1.298c0049_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/1/2002 7:02:45 AM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:

I'm switching 'a'o' to 'sei
mi pacna' in order to avoid the additudinal issues, without claiming
that they are equivalent. I wasn't claiming that 'sei mi pacni ko'a
klama' has the same truth conditions as 'ko'a klama', but that it has
the same truth conditions as 'mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama'.

Well, either {sei mi pacna} functions like {a'o} or it functions to give {ko'a klama i mi pacna la'e di'u}. Neither of these is quite {mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama}. The first has no truth value, the second has two, one of them the same as {mi pacna le du'u...} the other just that of {ko'a klama}. The argument seems to be which it is, with the Refgram and the first examples on the {a'o} side, you on the second -- or maybe a third -- side (to deal with the focus issue). I'm inclined to think it depends upon the brivla involved and in the case of {pacna} it goes to the {a'o} side.

Little though I like {ka'u'u} I think it is wiser to use these than ones with established -- though limited -- usage when you are experimenting. In this case, I expect that it might be possible to actually use {ka'u} in the way you intend without conflicts, once the need and pattern were settled. --part1_17e.2f910c1.298c0049_boundary--