la .asiz. cu cusku di'e
You use {mu'ei} exactly once in the whole translation:{no da po'u na'e bo lo tolvėrnu be mu'u mi cu su'o mu'ei pčnsi lo nu
bātci lo tai cmālu} (lion speaking)
Is it purely stylistic (more syllables can be more emphatic, or it may
be the lion's style), or do you by any chance make a distinction between
{ka'e} and {su'o mu'ei}, or between {bi'ai} and {ro mu'ei}?
I know that {su'o mu'ei} and {ka'e} are suppposed to be the same, but I think I do see a difference in emphasis. In this case the difference is between "nobody would ever" and "nobody can", sort of. For me:
ka'e X broda == lo nu broda cu cumki X
So it's a much simpler statement than "there exists at least one possible world where broda happens" even if they are truth funtionally the same.
Replacing {su'o mu'ei} with {ka'e} in the Oz sentence makes it sound different to me for some reason. It probably shouldn't. Or maybe they *aren't* equivalent. I'm not sure. All I know is that I don't seem to use them interchangeably myself.
mi'e la selpa'i mu'o
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.