BPFK Section: Modal Aspects



  • Why is only na'epu'i defined, but no other CAhA with to'e/na'e/na/nai? -lindar
  • na'epu'i seems to be either a carbon-copy of nu'o, or to be noroi actually. (Example suggests the latter). I would get rid of it altogether unless a both of my suppositions are false. - ksion
  • CAhA aren't allowed to be negated with nai by the grammar. This seems to be a mistake. Suggest ka'enai -> "is not capable of", ca'anai -> "is not currently", pu'inai would seem to suggest "either can't or has not or perhaps both" but "can't+hasn't" is "ka'enai", "can't+has" is logically impossible, "can +hasn't" is "nu'o", so it would it seeem to reduce to simply "hasn't, whether or not can't". Similarly, "nu'onai" would suggest "either can't or has or perhaps both", but "can't+has" is impossible, "can't+hasn't" is "ka'enai", "can+has" is "pu'i", so "nu'onai" is "has done if and only if can do" (e.g. "ro mabru nu'onai vasxu" (All mammals have breathed iff they can)). --gejyspa

CAhA + NAI(external link) has been previously discussed(external link). It makes little sense that it cannot be used that way, and many want to change it.

  • The vast majority of the selbri tcita and sumti tcita cmavo can be mapped directly back to {fi'o} constructs. Example: {pu broda} -> {broda pu zo'e} -> {broda fi'o se purci zo'e}. CAhA apparently cannot. For example, there is apparently no broda such that {.i ko'a ka'e brode .ijo ko'a broda lo su'u brode} is true. While not a glaring, language-breaking issue, it's somewhat inelegant that there's this chunk of the language that isn't "structural" (like LE or FA, for example) or in brivla space that is primitive. Any thoughts? -latros




The original document is available at http://tiki.lojban.org/tiki/BPFK+Section%3A+Modal+Aspects