[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la djorden cusku di'e
I might agree if we were talking 'lakne' and not 'cumki'. But 'cumki' is definitely too open ended, imho. However, I guess even 'lakne' wouldn't be exactly the same (though a fair bit closer)---I can be able to do things which I'm not neccesarily likely to succeed at. I think 'able' just deals with a different accessability relation, and is only a similar in concept to 'cumki' and 'lakne' in that they all correspond to a <> of sorts.
{lakne} would correspond to something like {so'emu'ei} or
{so'imu'ei}.
But I still don't understand how something could be unable to
be part of a relationship that is possible. If the relationship
is possible, certainly all the sumti have to be able to enter
into that relationship. How can it be otherwise?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail