From pycyn@aol.com Wed Feb 13 08:11:11 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 13 Feb 2002 16:11:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 8049 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 16:04:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Feb 2002 16:04:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 16:04:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.17a.38f8985 (3956) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:04:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <17a.38f8985.299be8a3@aol.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:04:51 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_17a.38f8985.299be8a3_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_17a.38f8985.299be8a3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/12/2002 7:07:07 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes: > 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'. > > > > > > > Butmthat was not what you gave as an explication (and I am not sure > that it > > IS what these expressions mean either). > > Yes, it was, that's how I defined it. Sorry, I didn't remember that this was your experimental gizmo. There are too many of these flying around and no registry of what who is using each to mean. Of course it does. But when, as in the instant case, we do not even know when the event is to take place, the future perfect (as it were) is the safest bet. 'le nu kau'u ko'a klama cu cumki' and 'ti'e ko'a klama' --> 'sei mi te cusku ko'a klama' --> 'mi te cusku le se du'u kau'u ko'a klama'> That wouldn't be my final analysis, but I agree that they do get analyzed the same way. I would get rid of the {kau'u} by pulling the assertion out and joining it to the buried form with {i}. Hmmm. I see your point. I guess that I am following a prejudice (and my own usage) here, which is take these as mere discursives, along with, say, "on the other hand." The reason for that turn of my own mind is that I find "clearly" is mainly used with things that are not at all clear (i.e., when the metalinguistic claim is false) and "precisely" is used -- if at all -- when the precision (i.e., prolixity and jargon) are all too obvious. --part1_17a.38f8985.299be8a3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/12/2002 7:07:07 PM Central Standard Time, araizen@newmail.net writes:

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'.
> >
>
> Butmthat was not what you gave as an explication (and I am not sure
that it
> IS what these expressions mean either).

Yes, it was, that's how I defined it.

Sorry, I didn't remember that this was your experimental gizmo. There are too many of these flying around and no registry of what who is using each to mean.

<Hoping requires that the hoper not know how the object of hope came
out or will come out, but it can still occur at any time. "I hope that
he rememebered to go to the store yesterday" makes perfect sense.>

Of course it does. But when, as in the instant case, we do not even know when the event is to take place, the future perfect (as it were) is the safest bet.

<Maybe as an evidential only in the extended sense, but the true
evidentials and 'possibly' can be analyzed the same way: 'sei cumki
ko'a klama' --> 'le nu kau'u ko'a klama cu cumki' and 'ti'e ko'a
klama' --> 'sei mi te cusku ko'a klama' --> 'mi te cusku le se du'u
kau'u ko'a klama'>

That wouldn't be my final analysis, but I agree that they do get analyzed the same way. I would get rid of the {kau'u} by pulling the assertion out and joining it to the buried form with {i}.

<If you don't consider 'li'a' and 'sa'e' metalinguistic, what is?
Aren't they quintessential metalinguistic operators?>

Hmmm. I see your point. I guess that I am following a prejudice (and my own usage) here, which is take these as mere discursives, along with, say, "on the other hand."
The reason for that turn of my own mind is that I find "clearly" is mainly used with things that are not at all clear (i.e., when the metalinguistic claim is false) and "precisely" is used -- if at all -- when the precision (i.e., prolixity and jargon) are all too obvious.

--part1_17a.38f8985.299be8a3_boundary--