| xorxes:
<la xod cusku di'e >If I pause my retelling of a story at the time right before >a fight appears to break out, I don't see why my listeners should assume >anything about whether or not the fight actually occurs. They shouldn't. On the other hand, if you tell me "you know, this morning Peter and Paul were on the verge of fighting when the bell rang", then I will probably assume that the fighting did not occur. Why? Because if it had occured, the information you are giving me is fairly irrelevant, you would have told me that they fought, not that they were on the verge. It is nothing more than an assumption, of course, based on the further assumption that your purpose in telling me what you tell me is more than just uttering true but uninformative or misleading statements. I will assume that you are telling me the most relevant fact about their fighting, and if being on the verge is the most relevant then they probably did not actually fight.> Beautiful! Welcome to the world of well formulated Gricean analysis. All factors present and accounted for. ivan: <The trouble is that _be on the verge of_ also means `come close to' (suggesting `but not ...'). (This is its usual interpretation in a main clause as opposed to a subordinate one.) But if that's what you mean, you should say so, and {pu'o} is not the way to say it.> That completes the circle, since {pu'o} got into this discussion exactly to deal with "come close to" in this sense when other notions seemed to be getting away from the point. So now we have three suggestions (have I missed any essentially different ones?) for dealing with "I nearly caught the train" or "I barely caughtthe train" and the like. 1) A tanru with {jibni} or the like. Not {jibni snada} clearly, since -- oh, the joys of a logical language! -- a {jibni snada} is still a {snada}. So , {snada jibni} for "I almost made it" and converted form {jibni co snada tu'a le trene} for the full _expression_ of a failure to catch the train. (Note that we still need some Griceing here,since "coming near" does not entail not actually reaching, but sure implicates the hell out of it). 2) {pu'o} and prayer. This works in isolation, given Gricean conventions, but whenever some correlated event is mentioned, the implicature fades fast. On the other hand, this form invites explanations of why you failed in exactly those correlated events. Of course, if you are not inclined to give an explanation,... 3) Modified affirmatives or denials: {ja'a ru'e} and {na'e ru'e}. Aside from not being sure about the grammaticality of these (though they seem to pass both parsers) there is the problem that the "near miss" or "near hit" part is lost truth functionally. "I just missed the train" can't be countered by "Bourgeous, boy, you were a good five minutes late"), since CAI like its kin UI carries no assertion value (it only expresses). I guess that I reluctantly go for 1 in general, though I think that theother have uses on specific occasions. |