[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 07:01:30PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la djorden cusku di'e
> > > So we are in agreement that "is innately capable" is a mis-gloss
> > > of {ka'e}? You, me, Adam and, I see, Jordan seem to be. I.e. it
> > > means {cumki} more than {kakne}.
> >
> >Eh? I think it *is* kakne. I see {su'omu'ei} as a reasonable
> >explaination of what kakne means (there's probably a different (more
> >restricted) accessability relation going on than for cumki though).
>
> How do you paraphrase {ka'e} in terms of {kakne}?
>
> ko'a ko'e ko'i ka'e broda
> -> ma kakne le nu ko'a ko'e ko'i broda
>
> What is the thing with innate capability? ko'a?
pe'i lu ko'a jo'u ko'e jo'u ko'i kakne lenu ko'a ko'e ko'i broda li'u
> I think the better paraphrase is {le nu ko'a ko'e ko'i
> broda cu cumki}
I think that means something else, slightly. For example, it is
possible that if I jump off of a 3 mile high cliff, I live, but I
don't think we would say that i'm "able to live when jumping off
of 3 mile high cliffs". I think this is because 'possible' allows
access to worlds which are more farfetched than the worlds which
'able' allows access to. Or alternatively perhaps 'able' requires
truth in more of the accessable worlds than 'possible' (which only
requires >=1) does.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binRTzmYz_4II.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped