[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 01:57:20AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>
> 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}.
Or just {su'omu'ei} with a different accessability relation.
> 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?
Not being able to say it is "able" isn't really the same as being
"unable". The diff between na'eka'e and to'eka'e. I would agree
that things which are cumki can't also be to'eka'e.
--
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:
bin0satQ_BKQ9.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped