Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:29:29 EST

In a message dated 2/1/2002 7:02:45 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> 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'.
> 

Well, either {sei mi pacna} functions like {a'o} or it functions to give 
{ko'a klama i mi pacna la'e di'u}. Neither of these is quite {mi pacna le 
du'u ko'a klama}. The first has no truth value, the second has two, one of 
them the same as {mi pacna le du'u...} the other just that of {ko'a klama}. 
The argument seems to be which it is, with the Refgram and the first examples 
on the {a'o} side, you on the second -- or maybe a third -- side (to deal 
with the focus issue). I'm inclined to think it depends upon the brivla 
involved and in the case of {pacna} it goes to the {a'o} side.

Little though I like {ka'u'u} I think it is wiser to use these than ones with 
established -- though limited -- usage when you are experimenting. In this 
case, I expect that it might be possible to actually use {ka'u} in the way 
you intend without conflicts, once the need and pattern were settled.