[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like



maikxlx wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
 >>>What we want out of {ka'e} is only the latter, and if it

can't guarantee that, then something else is needed IMHO.

You are saying that we WANT a cumki rather than a kakne meaning for use in
the contrast between the various CAhAs?


I do not necessarily* want to try to pry {ka'e} from {kakne} at this
point.  It's a rather frequently used cmavo and I suspect "reforming"
it would be futile, though xorxes thinks otherwise.  What I think
Lojban unequivocally needs are two new modal operators with a grammar
similar to CAhA but sensitive to scope.  Lojban also needs a brivla
for modal necessity to complement {cumki}, which we probably already
have as {zilsa'u} or possibly {ziln'i'i}, I don't care which.

*Notice the modal operator usage in natural language.

I didn't comment at the time, needing to think about it some more, but I am sure that this use of "not necessarily" is covered by some form of the four or five causal cmavo in BAI, and the choice probably depends on exactly what you mean by "not necessarily", since it isn't necessarily (zo'o) a *logical* non-necessity.

The five in question are
ki'u
ni'i
mu'i
ri'a,
and ja'e (which does not act in parallel to the others - it was not part of the original set, but we realized later that it somewhat overlapped the others).

"necessarily" seems like a "therefore", which is the "se" form of the first four and the unmodified ja'e. "Not necessarily" would then seem to be a kind of negation of the therefore statement - not the nai form which has been defined from the JCB era as "nevertheless", but presumably the na form.

Whatever word you choose, it has to be used carefully. If you attach the modal to the sumti "mi", you get "I do not necessarily want to try to pry ka'e from kakne at this point (but someone else might want to)." Attached to the "at this point" would suggest that you might want to try to do so at some other point, etc. Both are plausible readings of what you said, but I can see a couple more plausible readings as well (but I'd have to translate the rest of the sentence in order to figure how to say it, and I'm lazy, and I'm not sure that it is necessary to my point).


--
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.