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

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 03:06:53 +0200

la pycyn. cusku di'e

> > 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.

No, but it's the meaning of 'mi pacna le du'u kau/kau'u ko'a klama' or
'le du'u ko'a klama zo'u mi pacna le du'u ko'a klama'.

> 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).

I'm not sure what 'retro future tense' is, but the 'ko'a klama' in our
sentence could be in any tense.

> 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.

Is an epistemic particle the same as an evidential, like 'ti'e',
'ka'u', etc.? I think that the evidentials could be treated in the
same way, and I can see how I could think of 'possibly' as an
evidential, so I'll accept that.

mu'o mi'e .adam.