From pycyn@aol.com Sat Feb 02 16:17:37 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 3 Feb 2002 00:17:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 44430 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2002 00:17:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2002 00:17:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2002 00:17:36 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id r.30.219bc6e5 (30951) for ; Sat, 2 Feb 2002 19:17:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <30.219bc6e5.298ddb96@aol.com> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 19:17:26 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_30.219bc6e5.298ddb96_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: 13169 --part1_30.219bc6e5.298ddb96_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/2/2002 5:34:47 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: {ko'a klama i mi pacna la'e di'u}. Neither of these is quite {mi pacna le > du'u ko'a klama}. > Why are those the only two possibilities? Maybe 'sei mi pacna' > functions to give 'mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama'. > Try as I might, I can't read the stuff in the Refgram about {sei} to allow this: it is a not a metalinguistic comment on the discourse, it is simply a statement of my state of hope. I certainly agreee with the last point, though, since we are not too clear about the regular UI yet, the {sei} forms seem to be remote obscurities indeed. I don't see {po'o} as particularly metalinguistic, and certainly is not used that way -- it affects truth value in a straightforward way. So does {da'i}, namely by stepping out of statements into world creation; again, I don't see tht as metalinguistic, but as an operator for shifting linguistic function (like {a'o} for example). It certainly does not mean "I suppose that..." either. Actually, I have no trouble with {mi cumki klama}, though it means something different from {cumki fa le nu mi klama} and, probably, {sei cumki mi klama}. One problem is that there are a variety of things done with adverbs in SAE and so we need a variety of devices to cover them: one is just tanru ("modifies and verb or adjective"), another is apparently {sei}, which appears to have yet another function somewhere. --part1_30.219bc6e5.298ddb96_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/2/2002 5:34:47 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:
<PC: 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}.

Why are those the only two possibilities? Maybe 'sei mi pacna'
functions to give 'mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama'.

Try as I might, I can't read the stuff in the Refgram about {sei} to allow this: it is a not a metalinguistic comment on the discourse, it is simply a statement of my state of hope.

<The book does say that 'sei' is 'metalinguistic', but it doesn't fully
explain what it means by that. 'po'o' and 'da'i' are included among
the 'metalinguistic' indicators of UI, so I think that metalinguistic
indicators can alter the truth value. Otherwise, a large number of
pontential sei-phrases become useless. 'sei cumki' would be useless,
since the sentence claims the main bridi, and anything true is also
possible. Likewise, 'sei tolcu'i' would be useless, since it would
claim the main bridi, and anything true is not impossible. I think
that whether the truth value is altered is a matter of what the
sei-clause is, as it is with the rest of the indicators.>

I certainly agreee with the last point, though, since we are not too clear about the regular UI yet, the {sei} forms seem to be remote obscurities indeed. I don't see {po'o} as particularly metalinguistic, and certainly is not used that way -- it affects truth value in a straightforward way. So does {da'i}, namely by stepping out of statements into world creation; again, I don't see tht as metalinguistic, but as an operator for shifting linguistic function (like {a'o} for example). It certainly does not mean "I suppose that..." either.

<Barring that, how *would* you do adverbs? Supposedly, nouns,
adjectives, verbs, and adverbs are all collapsed into selbrivla in
lojban, but this doesn't work, as I assume that there would be even
greater objections to 'mi cumki klama' meaning 'I possibly go'. Is
restructuring the sentence to be the only way to do it?>

Actually, I have no trouble with {mi cumki klama}, though it means something different from {cumki fa le nu mi klama} and, probably, {sei cumki mi klama}. One problem is that there are a variety of things done with adverbs in SAE and so we need a variety of devices to cover them: one is just tanru ("modifies and verb or adjective"), another is apparently {sei}, which appears to have yet another function somewhere.

--part1_30.219bc6e5.298ddb96_boundary--