[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On 3/31/07, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@hidden.email> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 12:45:24PM -0300, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 3/26/07, Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@hidden.email> wrote: > > > > ganai da'i do viska le mi citno mensi gi ju'o do djuno le du'u ri pazvau > > > But I don't really understand what difference da'i and da'inai are meant > to signal in the CLL examples. They seem to be a ba/pu distinction rather > than a da'i/da'inai one: > > If you were to see my younger sister, > you would certainly know she is pregnant. > > If you saw my younger sister, > you would certainly know she is pregnant. Perhaps we should not look too closely at the actual English translations.
I think we shouldn't. They don't really make much sense to me.
Suppose, for instance that my younger sister died before you were born. Then you could not possibly have seen her, yet I can truthfully say that if you *had* been around (hypothetical viewpoint), then you would know she was pregnant. In this case, da'i nai would be inappropriate.
Right, but the English "if you were to see her" would be completely wrong. "If you were to see her" can only refer to a potential future event. It's "if you had seen her" for an unrealized past event. "da'i" could eventually be used in both those cases, with ba or pu respectively, but "da'i" doesn't say that the event has not or will not be realized, it only says that it need not have been or end up being realized.
On the other hand, supposing that my younger sister is about as old as both you and I, and I know that you may very well have met her last week, then the da'i nai version is the most appropriate.
No, because "da'inai" would say that the event was or will be realized for sure, not that it perhaps may have been or may be realized.
Actually, now that I think about it, the second (factual) translation might be an erratum. The straight implicational reading should say "you certainly know ...".
I think this needs more clarification. In English you can say: (1) If you had seen my sister, you would... (2) If you were to see my sister, you would... (3) If you saw my sister, you ... (1) presuposes that you did not see her, and speculates about what would have happened if you had. (2) presupposes that you have not *yet* seen her, and it says what will happen if you do end up seeing her. (3) allows that you may have seen her or not, and says what happens in case you did. "da'i" is like (3), it has none of the presuppositions of (1) or (2) as far as I can tell. mu'o mi'e xorxes