In a message dated 2/12/2002 7:07:07 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:but it's the meaning of 'mi pacna le du'u kau/kau'u ko'a Sorry, I didn't remember that this was your experimental gizmo. There are too many of these flying around and no registry of what who is using each to mean. <Hoping requires that the hoper not know how the object of hope came out or will come out, but it can still occur at any time. "I hope that he rememebered to go to the store yesterday" makes perfect sense.> Of course it does. But when, as in the instant case, we do not even know when the event is to take place, the future perfect (as it were) is the safest bet. <Maybe as an evidential only in the extended sense, but the true evidentials and 'possibly' can be analyzed the same way: 'sei cumki ko'a klama' --> 'le nu kau'u ko'a klama cu cumki' and 'ti'e ko'a klama' --> 'sei mi te cusku ko'a klama' --> 'mi te cusku le se du'u kau'u ko'a klama'> That wouldn't be my final analysis, but I agree that they do get analyzed the same way. I would get rid of the {kau'u} by pulling the assertion out and joining it to the buried form with {i}. <If you don't consider 'li'a' and 'sa'e' metalinguistic, what is? Aren't they quintessential metalinguistic operators?> Hmmm. I see your point. I guess that I am following a prejudice (and my own usage) here, which is take these as mere discursives, along with, say, "on the other hand." The reason for that turn of my own mind is that I find "clearly" is mainly used with things that are not at all clear (i.e., when the metalinguistic claim is false) and "precisely" is used -- if at all -- when the precision (i.e., prolixity and jargon) are all too obvious. |