RE: Re: Subjunctives

["Adam Raizen" <araizen@newmail.net>]

la xorxes cusku di'e

> From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
> 
> la adam cusku di'e
> 
> >I disagree. It seems to me that the x1 of vanbi is the geneal way to
> >express places like the x3 of binxo. In other words, "loi bisli cu
> >binxo loi jaclitki le nu glare" doesn't necessarily mean that any ice
> >actually becomes liquid water, if it never gets hot enough. Likewise
> >if "vanbi" is the main bridi. Even when you use the tag "va'o" as in
> >the above sentence, the main bridi is only being claimed under the
> >condition of the tagged sumti, as if an "under conditions" place was
> >added to the main bridi.
> 
> I'm not sure why you say you disagree. I agree with what
> you say, which means that va'o by itself, without da'i,
> already tags a hypothetical.
> 

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I had thought that you had just 
said that you accepted that "va'o" without "da'i" claims the main 
bridi with the tagged sumti as its environment, whereas I was 
saying that the main bridi does not necessarily occur if what is 
tagged by "va'o" doesn't occur.


Adam Raizen
araizen@newmail.net
-------------------
"Oom, Shmoom!"
--David Ben-Gurion