Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question)

[pycyn@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/2/2002 7:44:19 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:

> > Why are those the only two possibilities? Maybe 'sei mi pacna'
> > functions to give 'mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama'.
> >
>
> Try as I might, I can't read the stuff in the Refgram about {sei} to
allow
> this: it is a not a metalinguistic comment on the discourse, it is
simply a
> statement of my state of hope.

It is a metalinguistic comment on the main bridi, and in this case it
tells you that that bridi is not being claimed, but it is still the
topic of discussion.

But that is not what {mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama} means.  What you want is for {sei pacna} to be an epistemic particle: "my evidence for the claim {ko'a klama} is my hope that it be true" (forcing {ko'a klama} into retro future tense, I suppose).  That does seem plausible, maybe the most plausible reading for the {ko'a klama i mi pacna la'e di'u} version -- with appropriate play-down of the second part, though the epistemic ground is always a (usually minor) potential point of contention.