From araizen@newmail.net Fri Feb 01 05:02:16 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 1 Feb 2002 13:02:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 371 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 13:02:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Feb 2002 13:02:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sphere.barak.net.il) (212.150.48.98) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 13:02:15 -0000 Received: from out.newmail.net ([10.10.11.10]) by sphere.barak.net.il (InterMail vK.4.03.00.00 201-232-121 license 5444ddd44659357c6c93343e0ce38507) with SMTP id <20020201130045.ZGFO2403.sphere@out.newmail.net> for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:00:45 +0200 Received: from default ([62.0.182.105]) by out.newmail.net ; Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:03:22 +0200 Message-ID: <004501c1ab20$c73c3740$69b6003e@default> To: References: Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:02:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 From: "Adam Raizen" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen la pycyn. cusku di'e > > Is there another way that truth conditions can be affected? > > > The usual one is that they are eliminated. {ka'o klama} says that ka'o comes > sometime to where we all understand (here, typically). It is false if ka'o > never comes. But {a'o [or au] ka'o klama} expresses a hope or desire that > ka'o comes and is not falsified by his never coming, nor, of course, by my > being insincere about my hopes or desires. It has no truth value at all and > is at best sincere or not and appropriate or not (the latter if the hoped for > thing is known to have occurred already). I assume that you meant 'ko'a klama', and I'm switching 'a'o' to 'sei mi pacna' in order to avoid the additudinal issues, without claiming that they are equivalent. I wasn't claiming that 'sei mi pacni ko'a klama' has the same truth conditions as 'ko'a klama', but that it has the same truth conditions as 'mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama'. > 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.> > > I get the idea, but the focus job is explicitly limited to indirect questions > -- in fact, using {kau} make this an indirect question, in spite of not > having any other of the marks of one. Is the absence of cognitive predicates > and {le du'u} enough to warn of some other special usage her? Maybe, but I > expect someone to come up with a destruvtive counterexample. I was using 'kau' as the experimental marker of focus mentioned by And, as was partially suggested from the discussion on how to express the differences between 'it's me who went to the store' and 'it's the store that I went to', and this usage is may or may not be related to q-kau. It could have just as easily been an experimental cmavo, such as 'kau'u', which I'll probably use from now on so as not to confuse you. mu'o mi'e .adam.