Aside from the oddity of defining an emotional _expression_, this seems wrong to me even as an example.{ba'a} is an evidential, a shorthand reason for accepting a claim. It is, admittedly, a weak one, even if we throw in the speaker's expertise in the matter, but it still starts a case for accepting the following, even tentatively. But {a'o} doesn't introduce a claim at all, let alone suggests reasons for accepting it. If anything, it suggests (pragmatics at work) that the sentence following is likely to be false (just as "fear" suggests that follows is likely to be true). I also doubt that the neutral "what might happen" is a reasonable reading for {ba'a}, give the more definite readings of the other points on it's scale.
Sent from my iPad
On Thursday, August 30, 2012 12:58:10 PM UTC+4, tijlan wrote: It seems to me that many instances of {a'o} can be rephrased as {ba'a .au}:
.a'o do klama
I hope that you would come.
ba'a .au do klama
I anticipate* & desire that you would come.
(* In the evidential sense of "to see what might happen", not the
emotionally loaded sense of "to expect with pleasure".)
From my understanding, {ba'a} refers to the temporal location of
whatever information source that would prove or disprove the bridi
(hence its evidential status), not to the temporal location of the
event described by the bridi (for which there are PU). By {ba'a do
klama}, I'm saying that the truth of {do klama} would be revealed to
me, if at all, in the future (i.e. I'm yet to come across verificatory
information); and, by adding {au}, I'm expressing my desire for {do
klama}. (Note also that {ba'a} doesn't adequately express subjective
certainty or objective probability, for which there are {ju'o} and
{la'a}.) Then, {ba'a} is compatible with non-future events, which is
the case of "hope" too, as in "I hope they are already working on it",
which in my opinion can be translated using {ba'a .au}.
{au} seems intrinsic to {a'o}, and I can't think of a meaningful case
of {a'o .aunai broda}, to answer Joey's question. (But {a'onai .au
broda} is easily conceivable. When there's no hope for your coming but
I still desire that, I can say {a'onai .au do klama}.)
Can't we clearly define UI in terms of {sei broda} after all? So you are saying that {.a'o}={sei kanpe je djica}, right?
Can you also derive {.ai} from {.au}?
mu'o
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/76PHZo4khYEJ.
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.
--
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.
|