[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re: Subjunctives
- Subject: RE: Re: Subjunctives
- From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 12:57:09 PST
la and cusku di'e
> > va'o le nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ricfu
> > Under the conditions where I have a mill., I am rich.
> > In every world where I have a mill., I am rich.
>
>First, don't you need to have {da'i} after {va'o}? Else your sentence is
>basically saying that you are rich and you have a
>million, where the having a million is the conditions in which you are
>rich.
Yes, I accept that. I admit that I often just use {va'o}
because I take it as if {da'i} was a part of it. I don't
think {va'o} without {da'i} is all that useful.
>Second, if you do have the {da'i}, you still can't get the "every world"
>versus "some world" distinction, which was the point I intended in my
>original contribution to this thread.
Yes I can! :)
I thought about this just after having sent my answers to you
and then I forgot to write about it. It would be something
like this:
va'oda'i lo nu mi ponse lo rupnu megdo kei mi ka'e seljibysti
Under some conditions where I have a mill., I can retire.
In some world where I have a mill., I can retire.
So, {va'o le nu} or {va'o ro lo nu} for "would be" and
{va'o lo nu} = {va'o su'o lo nu} for "might be".
co'o mi'e xorxes
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com