maikxlx wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:Also, while {cumki} does express possibility, {ka'e}, from the given definitions, seems to be more about ability than possibility.But whose ability? Each of the arguments of the relation modified by "ka'e"? The x1? The agent (assuming there is one)?You're asking me?! Well since you asked, from what I see, I would definitely assume the x1, given the glosses, proposed keywords, and examples in the CLL and BPFK.That was the intent (or rather the "subject" rather than x1, since you could access the x2 with "se brivla" etc), though I admit that I didn't and still don't really understand why it couldn't apply to one of the other places. If I make a ka'e capability claim involving all the places of klama, then the claim applies just as much to the place gone to as to the go-er. If I can go to a place (from somewhere else by some route), then that place can be gone to by me, and likewise, if I cannot, then it cannot.I have to disagree; I think that {kakne} capability manifests itself differently among each of the bridi places. Specifically the capacity of a goer to be a goer is expressible as something like {lo ka ka'e klama}, while the capacity to be a place gone-to is {lo ka ka'e se klama} -- assuming that {ka'e} carries from {kakne}, which is something that xorxes disputes.
But of course the capability of lo klama to be such is the capability to klama x2 x3 x4 x5, and its capability is dependent on the values of x2, x3, x4, and x5, and correspondingly, the claim seems evident that this is strongly associated with the capability of that x2 to se klama x1 x3 x4 x5, and with the capability of x3 to te klama x2 x1 x4 x5, etc.
"possible" (cumki) seems to ONLY be about events, whereas I thought ka'e and CAhA was more about the sumti that participate in the events. Maybe there isn't a lot of difference, though.I agree with you here about {cumki} and {kakne}. In ordinary conversation, often the difference is not great,
Since that is the only sort of language use I know how to deal with, I plead guilty %^)
> as the non-existence
of purely modal-logical operators in Lojban up until now would seem to prove. But from a logical point of view, the difference is rather important.
I defer to the experts.
Or maybe pc and I understood at the time that necessity was not something covered in CAhA, (since I am pretty sure he has *at least* a "foggiest notion".)Sounds like someone has some 'splainin to do.
Well, CAhA was certainly not intended to be the category "modal-logical operators", and BAI was originally intended to include all of the pure modals, since the insight from the JCB era was that linguistically the modals and case tags/sumti tcita could be used in grammatically interchangeable ways (we didn't think too much about semantic differences, only grammatical ones). The intent at that point was that ni'i used as a modal would handle logical necessity, and its possible use as a sumti tag was consistent with this meaning. BAI has evolved over the years, and is much more strongly associated with the place structures of the associated gismu per the fi'o equivalence, and this may have lost something from the intended modals that are among the set of BAI.
Indeed, I think the current TLI language may treat ALL of the words that comprise their current modal AND tense AND case tag complex as being a single category to be combined willy-nilly in strings with no internal grammatical structure, as if all of them were members of selma'o PU. That was the case in 1987, and I doubt that it changed.
lojbab -- Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.