2011/11/22 Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Michael Turniansky
<
mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, in many cases where xorxes wants to use ka'e for "it's
> possible",
way around, I want "it's possible", or "it could be", for "ka'e".
So what you need to tell us is not how you'd say "it's possible", but
how you'd understand for example "ka'e ku no da klama".
Oh, I agree with you that, GIVEN that sentence, it seems to me to mean what you said: "it's innately possible that no one comes". I was simply saying that if in fact I was intending to convey "It's possible that no one is coming", I would have stated it as "la'a cu'i no da klama" (or "no la'a cu'i da klama") I could instead have used pe'i or ju'ocu'i do show that it is me that it's uncertain, rather than some objective standard.
> I'd personally choose to not use a CAhA at all, but la'acu'i
Something can also be possible and extremely likely, or possible and
extremely unlikely. If "possible" corresponds to "su'o", then the la'a
scale corresponds to so'a/so'e/so'i/so'o/so'u.
la'acu'i ;-)
>(or
> go to full-blown brivla using cumki), while recognizing that it's not
> precisely the same part of speech, and perhaps not the same logical
> implications, I think it does convey the same meaning.
That was my point, "ka'e ku broda" has basically the same meanimg as
"cumki fa lo nu broda". Or more precisely, "ka'e" is "fi'o se cumki".
But I disagree. If ka'e is "fi'o se cumki", then perforce ka'e would be a BAI, not a CAhA. That's why I'm not sure it's entirely "legit" to have a ka'e without an X1 (yes, I know grammatically, it's fine. Just my gut feeling on the meaning). I guess I have to adjust my thinking to be one of "it's a statement on the achievabilty of the bridi as a whole, not just on the X1's capability to bring it about (kakne)." So, I guess I'm in your camp as far as the meaning, if not the grammar.
> In any case, I
> wondered about the following utterance (I'm pretty sure xorxes would like it
> and understand it in the way I intend): "va'o lo nu da'i ka'e no'a kei mi ba
> co'e" (hint: it's a six syllable in English). Is it clear? (Probably less
> clear as "va'olonuda'ika'eno'akeimibaco'e" ;-) )
"If I can I will"? I count five syllables.
Very true. But that's because when I was thinking about it, I left in the elidable "then" -- "If I could, then I would" (cf.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAP9AF6DCu4&ob=av2e ) Still, is there a good pseudo-Whorfian exlanation why it takes three times longer to express that in lojban than English? (And is there a shorter way to to translate it into lojban?)
--gjeyspa