From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBCYyv7nBBoEhx74zQ@googlegroups.com Wed Dec 08 07:32:56 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PQM0h-0003rs-O8; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:32:56 -0800 Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19sf1129748gxk.16 for ; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:32:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=J6iZZqq7p8mo5gd+u178auqW/vlghZdSEnr/CpuzaWE=; b=bM2LlcTJ+HuJqSnKk0hpAj0ghO79ymW09ee8trA7CQWECK+ZNmpO/ExfXzSfz+Gjz0 ES6M7JTCAwiu9gKFuDDC5EYzNbWlpokvyBScJXUQaMAyvMssasdaaVElrOV45eqLebTf 4fxIHr9tnR6vPNjSvKElnOoJsAo+WOTUY1B50= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=dNTuRXHz8myHwAxtlgh87JLxZE7iai1/JvgL52bed896u45J4EIPbXyT5wv4Q+a9Xm yzaHhL3a0PbSaRSGcwFDEfY92Z3yhICJfoC8RGr1iTvR1o85nxyX07iD8DiUQQmz62EK hIhzUm5+J3pmAXtJ4pfVVUl8KFmCpmP6Xx0+o= Received: by 10.151.63.32 with SMTP id q32mr243421ybk.66.1291822360729; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:32:40 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.141.220 with SMTP id n28ls329557ibu.0.p; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:32:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.19.136 with SMTP id a8mr4114027ibb.19.1291822359293; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:32:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.19.136 with SMTP id a8mr4114023ibb.19.1291822358830; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:32:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f181.google.com (mail-iw0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m30si265001ibu.6.2010.12.08.07.32.37; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.181; Received: by mail-iw0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 3so1847026iwn.12 for ; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:32:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.31.136 with SMTP id y8mr9210771ibc.145.1291822357588; Wed, 08 Dec 2010 07:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.199.206 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 07:32:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:32:37 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] conditional and hypotetical sentences From: Luke Bergen To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0022152d5eadbcb2fa0496e7d481 --0022152d5eadbcb2fa0496e7d481 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, this makes far more sense than my current understanding of ka'e. Once again, the CLL has completely mislead me. Based on what you said, I would expect {ro datke ka'e flulimna} to mean something other than {all ducks are innately capable of swimming}, but that's exactly what the CLL says it means. 2010/12/8 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Luke Bergen > wrote: > > > > Is there a version of "ka'e" that > > doesn't have that irritating "innate" aspect of it? I don't {ka'e > limna}, > > but I {kakne lo nu limna}. > > "ka'e" is not really about capability, so the "innate" thing doesn't > really make much sense there. > > "ka'e" is about possibility, not capability. If an event or situation > is possible, you mark it with "ka'e", if it's not only possible but > actually happens, you mark it with "ca'a". > > Events don't really have "innate" capabilities of happening, they are > just possible or impossible, and "ka'e" marks an event, not an agent. > > "ka'e" cannot be about the innate capabilities of the x1, there is no > selection of the x1 by a selbri tag. "ka'e limna" says that someone > swimming in some fluid is possible. It is not about the swimmer's > innate capabilities to swim any more than about the fluid's innate > capabilities of being swum in. > > > We've got: innately able (generic, don't care if you have done it or > not), > > non-innately (learned) able AND has exercised this learned ability, and > > non-innately (learned) able AND has NOT exercised this learned ability. > > Who is the one having exercised or not this "ability"? You or the > fluid? For talking about an innate capability, there is "se jinzi": > > mi se jinzi lo ka ce'u limna lo djacu > > Which has nothing to do with: > > lo djacu cu se jinzi lo ka mi limna ce'u > > "mi ka'e limna lo djacu" is neither of those. It's just about my > swimming in water being something that can happen. > > > What if I don't care about whether I've exercised the learned behavior > yet? > > I want the generic aspect of ka'e but the non-innateness of nu'o/pu'i. > > Does that exist in some cmavo I've never noticed before? > > "ka'e" cannot be about the x1's capabilities for doing something, > whether innate or learned. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --0022152d5eadbcb2fa0496e7d481 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, this makes far more sense than my current understanding of ka'e. = =A0Once again, the CLL has completely mislead me.

Based = on what you said, I would expect {ro datke ka'e flulimna} to mean somet= hing other than {all ducks are innately capable of swimming}, but that'= s exactly what the CLL says it means.

2010/12/8 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is there a version of "ka'e" that
> doesn't have that irritating "innate" aspect of it? =A0I= don't {ka'e limna},
> but I {kakne lo nu limna}.

"ka'e" is not really about capability, so the "inn= ate" thing doesn't
really make much sense there.

"ka'e" is about possibility, not capability. If an event or s= ituation
is possible, you mark it with "ka'e", if it's not only po= ssible but
actually happens, you mark it with "ca'a".

Events don't really have "innate" capabilities of happening, = they are
just possible or impossible, and "ka'e" marks an event, not a= n agent.

"ka'e" cannot be about the innate capabilities of the x1, the= re is no
selection of the x1 by a selbri tag. "ka'e limna" says that s= omeone
swimming in some fluid is possible. It is not about the swimmer's
innate capabilities to swim any more than about the fluid's innate
capabilities of being swum in.

> We've got: innately able (generic, don't care if you have done= it or not),
> non-innately (learned) able AND has exercised this learned ability, an= d
> non-innately (learned) able AND has NOT exercised this learned ability= .

Who is the one having exercised or not this "ability"? You = or the
fluid? For talking about an innate capability, there is "se jinzi"= ;:

=A0 mi se jinzi lo ka ce'u limna lo djacu

Which has nothing to do with:

=A0 lo djacu cu se jinzi lo ka mi limna ce'u

"mi ka'e limna lo djacu" is neither of those. It's just a= bout my
swimming in water being something that can happen.

> =A0What if I don't care about whether I've exercised the learn= ed behavior yet?
> =A0I want the generic aspect of ka'e but the non-innateness of nu&= #39;o/pu'i.
> =A0Does that exist in some cmavo I've never noticed before?

"ka'e" cannot be about the x1's capabilities for do= ing something,
whether innate or learned.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--0022152d5eadbcb2fa0496e7d481--