Re: [lojban] [oz] {ka'e} vs. {su'o mu'ei}

Ok, gleki, I'll have to wait, then. But I must note that this use of {ka'e} is still exactly how I use {su'o mu'ei}. I think what makes xalbo's sentences distinctive is that they are generic po'o.

Also, possible worlds are not imaginary! Imaginary worlds, as in worlds imagined by someone, exist in the actual world as much as thoughts and feelings do. Possible worlds are typically infinite and don't need anyone imagining them to exist. Furthermore, some people (e.g., Hegel) even defend that you can imagine impossible things (which is to say that in some possible world someone imagines an impossible thing).

That stated, I am still very interested in reading new ideas about the subjunctive.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On 26 January 2014 11:28, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

According to la xalbo {lo mlatu ka'e nenri lo botpi} means that a cat can be inside a bottle (if e.g. that bottle is big enough) but i can't say {lo skami ka'e djica} unless computers have emotions.

Of course, as usual it all depends on context but what {ka'e} does is that it shows semantic relations (cat can be in a bottle, cats cannot breathe water etc.)

However, {su'omu'ei} creates imaginary worlds.

Sorry for such a short explanation. The new version of my subjunctive system (that is supposedly equal to the one de facto used by Nick Nicholas at the time he was writing Lojban for Beginners) will be presented later.

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com> wrote:

Ok.

I didn't understand the link you sent. Is it the correct?

On 26 January 2014 10:32, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

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.

--
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.

--
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.