Re: [lojban-beginners] Why is CAhA a tense/modal?

[Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:33 AM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> {ka'e} is semantically close more to {cumki} than to {kakne}:
>
> http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/ka%27e
>
> {lo plise ka'e farlu} means "It's possible that apples fall" (a
> possibility whose realization doesn't hinge on volition) rather than
> "Apples are capable of falling" (a capability whose realization hinges
> on volition).

How does volition fit in here? Apples are innately capable of falling
just like all other material objects, even in a universe with no
volition.

I wonder how your sense of {ka'e}'s meaning squares with the CLL's:
http://dag.github.com/cll/10/19/ — note in particular the claim there
that {ro datka ka'e flulimna} is true even though some ducks actually
can't swim, and that {la djan. ka'e viska} might be true even if John
has been blind from birth.

If this is {cumki}, mustn't the cumki2's be counterfactual conditions?
Is {cumki} meant to be used with counterfactual conditions?

> {ka'e} works by virtue of {cumki}'s place structure like {pu} does of {purci}'s,

Is this your guess? It was my impression that there was virtually no
agreement about CAhA's meaning as sumtcita. We certainly can't use
{pu} analogies in general.

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