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

[tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>]

On 20 April 2011 16:03, Thomas Jack <thomasjack@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

By "capable" I was referring to the definition of {kakne}, which is
what I was comparing {cumki} with. Arguably, kakne1 is a conscious
agent (analogous to gasnu1) who is capable of bringing about kakne2,
and that's where I think the unique utility of {kakne} most resides,
i.e. {kakne} is more useful if kakne1 is more than {lo jai cumki}, an
entity potentially involved in a potential event. kakne1, whether or
not we call it "volitional", must be some sort of agent. {lo plise cu
kakne lo nu farlu} doesn't necessarily mean that the apple itself can
fall; it means that the apple can cause a falling of something. The
usual sense of "apples can fall" would be more accurately expressed as
{lo nu lo plise cu farlu cu cumki} or {lo plise ka'e farlu}. (That
{ka'e} morphologically derived from {kakne} but semantically rests on
{cumki} while these two selbri aren't exactly interchangebale, is
confusing, but that's how Lojban currently stands.)


> 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.

According to how this CAhA is actually defined, {ro datka ka'e
flulimna} means {lo nu ro datka cu flulimna cu cumki}, which I'm not
sure would be true if there already is an actuality where some ducks
can't swim. What's meant by this example is presumably that every
organism with the duck genome has the innate capability to cause the
event of itself swimming, {ro datka cu kakne lo nu vo'a flulimna}. {da
ka'e broda} can't exactly substitue for {da kakne lo nu broda}.


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

I don't think so. {cumki} can describe a future possibility, something
that's neither counterfactual nor factual at a particular point in
time. {(da'i) lo nu mi ba'o fengu cu cumki lo nu mi pu na'e citka lo
plise} (I would have possibly been angry if I hadn't eaten the apple
earlier) is a counterfactual possibility, while {lo nu mi ba fengu cu
cumki lo nu mi ca na'e citka lo plise} (I might / would / will
possibly be angry if I didn't / don't eat the apple now.) is not
counterfactual. (Note that cumki1 in either case is still a
possibility even if the condition is met. cumki2 qualifies cumki1 as
more than an entirely impossible event (as true in at least one
possible world) and less than an actual event.)


mu'o

-- 
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.