From xod@sixgirls.org Thu Jan 31 13:43:42 2002
Return-Path: <xod@reva.sixgirls.org>
X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 31 Jan 2002 21:43:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 38806 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2002 21:43:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172)
  by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Jan 2002 21:43:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (216.27.131.50)
  by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2002 21:43:40 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]])
  by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g0VLhd705681
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:43:39 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 16:43:38 -0500 (EST)
To: lojban <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style
  question)
In-Reply-To: <007601c1aa9e$c9e3f8c0$c4b7003e@default>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.44.0201311639260.18000-100000@reva.sixgirls.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
From: Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1138703
X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Adam Raizen wrote:

> la .and. cusku di'e
>
> > I agree that "sei cumki" is the UI-like way to say "possibly".
> >
> > However, what you describe as 'shifting focus' is actually in some
> cases
> > a shift also in truth conditions. The 'logical' way to defocalize
> superstructure
> > would be to leave the logical structure in standard selbri + sumti
> form, and
> > to indicate (de)focalization by means of UI.
>
> In what way can it shift truth conditions? The only possibility I can
> think of would be in cases where the selbrivla does not claim the
> subsentence, as in 'cumki'. If you claim that 'sei cumki mi klama'
> claims that mi klama, then clearly that has a different truth value
> than 'le nu mi klama cu cumki'; however, there are many UI which
> change the truth value, so I don't see any reason why 'sei' clauses
> must be different. Also, I consider 'sei cumki mi klama' to be the
> same as 'le nu kau mi klama cu cumki' (using 'kau' for the
> focus-marking UI), at least until someone objects or comes up with
> something better.



mi na jimpe lo jai tepi'o cusku zo kau .i ku'i li'a zo sei ka'e galfi lo
jezbroda mu'a lu sei tcica mi klama li'u



-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.


