mi na nu'o catra ko'a

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

It's my understanding that when we say "mi catra ko'a", the tense is left
vague or to context, so it could in fact mean only "mi nu'o catra ko'a" --
which could be an interesting way to refute an earlier confession in a
lojbanic court!  Do I have this right?  It's a little weird, but necessary
so that "mi catra" can mean "I'm a killer", even if I haven't killed anyone
yet, and never get around to killing anyone.

Even worse, suppose I claimed "mi na catra ko'a" -- could that be
interpreted in some circumstances as "mi na nu'o catra ko'a"?  Since "nu'o"
means "can but has not", does the "na" deny that the action was innately
possible, or that it didn't in fact happen?  Or are both claims made by
"nu'o", so we have to use De Morgan's law ( NOT(A AND B) => NOT A OR NOT B )
to figure out what's going on:

mi na nu'o catra =>
mi na (na ca'a je ka'e) catra =>
mi (ca'a ja na ka'e) catra =>
mi ca'a catra .ijanai mi ka'e catra

"If I was capable of it, then I killed him"   Easier to understand in the
future tense: "I'll kill him if I can".  Given my train of reasoning, this
is a possible interpretation of "mi na catra ko'a", just as much as "I will
kill him"  or "I was about to kill him", right? (BTW I'm not arguing against
this, but if my interpretation is correct, I'm warning that it's a weird
area to be careful in.  If this is logical-but-counterintuitive and hard for
English speakers to grasp, but fluent Lojbanis manage to figure it out,
lojban will have demonstrated something very interesting, IMHO)

Well, I've convinced myself of this, so I guess I don't have a question
anymore, except "is this right and/or intelligible?"
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Chris Bogart
 cbogart@quetzal.com
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~