From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Apr 26 17:56:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 15671 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2006 00:56:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33) by m32.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Apr 2006 00:56:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Apr 2006 00:56:06 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FYunc-0003YS-9d for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:56:04 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FYumS-0003WD-Sj; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:55:05 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:54:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FYum0-0003W3-7a for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:54:24 -0700 Received: from eastrmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.240.36]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FYulw-0003Vv-Qj for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:54:23 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [24.250.99.39]) by eastrmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060427005419.PIB15797.eastrmmtao03.cox.net@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:54:19 -0400 Message-ID: <44501633.1070407@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 20:54:11 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20060426235106.51958.qmail@web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20060426235106.51958.qmail@web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11345 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: Bob LeChevalier From: Bob LeChevalier Reply-To: lojbab@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: About jboselkei reviews X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=p11YeBEb3VAvVYJth4DWhA4Q0DIPU9BTTYGpyVEyGs7o6xHdDw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25760 John E Clifford wrote: > While I am not sure I agree with the arguments in > toto, I agree with at least a weak form of the > conclusion. There is no need for a modal version > of {kakne}. Ah, but ka'e isn't a modal version of kakne. At least it wasn't intended to be. The 4 modals of CAhA were things that you and I came up with together, as being a way to resolve the potential inanity of "potential" predicates. Remembering that in theory an unmarked bridi could refer to something that is only potentially true (I remember examples relating to ducks being potential swimmers, and paper being potentially flammable, in the timeless potential sense, even when the duck is nowhere near water and the paper is drenched.) With potential a valid form of unmarked bridi, we needed a way to explicitly mark bridi as to potentiality and actuality. You identified 4 possibilities, to which I mnemomically assigned ca'a, ka'e, nu'o, and pu'i. Any resemblance of those modalities to the bridi from which their cmavo were mnemonicized is not necessarily significant. If the keyphrase "innately capable of" is misleading people, please remember that, as with all keyphrase cmavo definitions, the purpose of that keyphrase was to have something unique but as short as possible to be typed in LogFlash. Just as with the keywords of the gismu, NONE of the keyphrases were EVER intended to serve as the primary definitions of the words (but then, we also expected that there would be a dictionary with proper definitions within a year or so, and that never happened). They were, however, baselined along with the cmavo list, and the lack of a real dictionary has led people to think of them as something other than what they are supposed to be. I'm hoping that one eventual outcome of the byfy work is that the keyphrases either disappear completely, or that they are returned to their intended mnemonic-of-meaning function, and cease to be definitional. > There further should be a modal version of {cumki}. It would be nice to convince > some higher power to shift {ka'e} in that way > (appearance notwithstanding). How would this cumki modal fit into the CAhA scheme you originally proposed, or is it really that the keyphrase for ka'e is poorly chosen and the pure potential modal should be closer to cumki in meaning than to kakne? lojbab To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.