[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pc:
> a.rosta@hidden.email writes:
>
> <<
>
> If {du'u} were abolished, are there any cases where it could not
> be replaced by {ka'e nu}, assuming an appropriate tweaking of
> the semantics of sumti places that take a du'u sumti (e.g.
> "true" being reconstrued as "is actual", is "ca'a nu")?
> >
> >
> I don't get this one. Even ignoring the questions about what {ka'e}
> means and whether it can be made to mean possible,
Yes, ignore that question -- it's not relevant to this thread.
> {du'u} doesn't seem to have much to do with events.
I'm not saying it does. I'm raising the possibility that selbri
that currently have "that x is true" as part of their definition
could be redefined as having "that x is actual" instead. I was
asking whether there are cases where that wouldn't be feasible.
In practise, it's very hard if not downright impossible to tell
whether a sumti should be a ka'e nu or a du'u.
> This sounds a lot like a
> use-mention confusion -- between what refers to something and the
> something it refers to. In addition, there are impossible
> propositions, but maybe not impossible events and certainly not
> impossible possible events.
As I say, I'm not saying they're the same thing. I'm wondering if
we can use one to the exclusion of the other, given the extreme
difficulty or perhaps even arbitrariness of deciding which to
use with a given selbri.
--And.