From pycyn@aol.com Sun Feb 03 07:20:13 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 3 Feb 2002 15:20:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 15934 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2002 15:20:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2002 15:20:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2002 15:20:12 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.26.) id r.123.b251a59 (4406) for ; Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:20:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <123.b251a59.298eaf25@aol.com> Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:20:05 EST Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_123.b251a59.298eaf25_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_123.b251a59.298eaf25_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/2/2002 7:44:19 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > > > Why are those the only two possibilities? Maybe 'sei mi pacna' > > > functions to give 'mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama'. > > > > > > > Try as I might, I can't read the stuff in the Refgram about {sei} to > allow > > this: it is a not a metalinguistic comment on the discourse, it is > simply a > > statement of my state of hope. > > It is a metalinguistic comment on the main bridi, and in this case it > tells you that that bridi is not being claimed, but it is still the > topic of discussion. > But that is not what {mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama} means. What you want is for {sei pacna} to be an epistemic particle: "my evidence for the claim {ko'a klama} is my hope that it be true" (forcing {ko'a klama} into retro future tense, I suppose). That does seem plausible, maybe the most plausible reading for the {ko'a klama i mi pacna la'e di'u} version -- with appropriate play-down of the second part, though the epistemic ground is always a (usually minor) potential point of contention. --part1_123.b251a59.298eaf25_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/2/2002 7:44:19 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:


> > Why are those the only two possibilities? Maybe 'sei mi pacna'
> > functions to give 'mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama'.
> >
>
> Try as I might, I can't read the stuff in the Refgram about {sei} to
allow
> this: it is a not a metalinguistic comment on the discourse, it is
simply a
> statement of my state of hope.

It is a metalinguistic comment on the main bridi, and in this case it
tells you that that bridi is not being claimed, but it is still the
topic of discussion.


But that is not what {mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama} means.  What you want is for {sei pacna} to be an epistemic particle: "my evidence for the claim {ko'a klama} is my hope that it be true" (forcing {ko'a klama} into retro future tense, I suppose).  That does seem plausible, maybe the most plausible reading for the {ko'a klama i mi pacna la'e di'u} version -- with appropriate play-down of the second part, though the epistemic ground is always a (usually minor) potential point of contention. --part1_123.b251a59.298eaf25_boundary--