On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:37:47PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> >I think that means something else, slightly. For example, it is
> >possible that if I jump off of a 3 mile high cliff, I live, but I
> >don't think we would say that i'm "able to live when jumping off
> >of 3 mile high cliffs". I think this is because 'possible' allows
> >access to worlds which are more farfetched than the worlds which
> >'able' allows access to. Or alternatively perhaps 'able' requires
> >truth in more of the accessable worlds than 'possible' (which only
> >requires >=1) does.
>
> So you and the cliff are not capable of being in some relationship
> which is however possible? Hmm...
>
> I think {ka'eku mi plipe fi lo'e minli be li ci cmana gi'e za'o
> jmive} should be true when {cumki fa le du'u mi plipe fi lo'e
> minli be li ci cmana gi'e za'o jmive} is true.
I might agree if we were talking 'lakne' and not 'cumki'. But
'cumki' is definitely too open ended, imho. However, I guess even
'lakne' wouldn't be exactly the same (though a fair bit closer)---I
can be able to do things which I'm not neccesarily likely to succeed
at. I think 'able' just deals with a different accessability
relation, and is only a similar in concept to 'cumki' and 'lakne'
in that they all correspond to a <> of sorts.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00153.pgp
Description: PGP signature