Lojban
The Logical Language
Log in
Username:
Password:
I forgot my password |
CapsLock is on.
Log in
History: BPFK Section: Modal Aspects
View page
Source of version: 17
(current)
{BOX()} !! cmavo: ca'a (CAhA) !!! Proposed Definition Modal aspect. Indicates that the event is actually happening. When tagging a sumti, it indicates the conditions under which the event occurs. !!! Proposed Tag fi'o jai va'o fasnu !!! See Also * {ka'e} * {nu'o} * {pu'i} * {ca} !!! Proposed Keywords * actually * currently * really !!! Usage Examples ;.i su'a lo na krici cu zasti .i'a .i ku'i le mi bende cu ca'a gunka:''Well, there's certainly going to be those who doubt us, but our team is proving themselves through their work.'' !!! Notes {BOX} {BOX()} !! cmavo: ka'e (CAhA) !!! Proposed Definition Modal aspect. Indicates that the event is possible or has the potential to occur. When tagging a sumti, it indicates under which conditions the event has the potential to occur. !!! Proposed Tag fi'o jai va'o cumki !!! See Also * {kakne} * {ca'a} * {nu'o} * {pu'i} !!! Proposed Keywords * could * can * possibly * potentially !!! Usage Examples ;.i do ka'e pilno lo tanru i ku'i na satci:''You can use tanru, but they're not precise.'' !!! Notes {ka'e} covers all situations where {pu'i} and {nu'o} are applicable (is more general than both of them). {BOX} {BOX()} !! cmavo: pu'i (CAhA) !!! Proposed Definition Modal aspect. Indicates that the event has ocurred at least once. When tagging a sumti, it indicates the conditions under which the event has occured. !!! Proposed Tag ca su'o da poi purci ''sumti'' !!! See Also * {ka'e} * {nu'o} * {ca'a} * {kakne} !!! Proposed Keywords * can and has !!! Usage Examples ;.i .uinai xu tu'a le midju donri ke smaji pu'i cfari:"The mid-day calm has started." !!! Notes Unlike {ka'e}, {pu'i} requires a potential to be demonstrated at least once. If that's not the case (but {ka'e} still applies), use {nu'o}. {BOX} {BOX()} !! cmavo: nu'o (CAhA) !!! Proposed Definition Modal aspect. Expresses an unrealized potential of the occurence of the event. When tagging a sumti, it indicates the conditions under which the event has an unrealized potential to occur. !!! Proposed Tag !!! See Also * {ka'e} * {pu'i} * {kakne} !!! Proposed Keywords * can but has not * is expected to be able to !!! Usage Examples ;.i mi nu'o se darxi fo lo stedu:"I can, but have never been, struck on the head." ;la .meris. nu'o gletu:''Mary was a virgin.'' !!! Notes {nu'o} requires a potential to not be demonstrated even once. It is applicable in situations where {ka'e} is but {pu'i} is not. !!! Issues Not to be confused with {na'o}. There is also apparently little-to-no difference between {nu'o} and {na'epu'i}. Further investigation needed. {BOX} {BOX()} !! Proposed Definition of ''na'epu'i'' ;__na'epu'i__ (CAhA*): has never -- A modal aspect indicating an inability, or that something has never happened. (lit. "something other than a demonstrated ability") ** Keywords: "has never", "can't" !! Examples of ''na'epu'i'' Usage ;.i mi la lisp. nelci .i ku'i mi na'epu'i pu pilno ri:"I like lisp, but I have never previously used it." {BOX} ! Notes * 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 [http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/browse_thread/thread/10ed127895ed465c|CAhA + NAI] has been [http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/browse_thread/thread/bc93804cc30d8979|previously discussed]. 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 ! Impact
About
Introduction
What Others Say
FAQ
Learning
Books
Vocabulary
Lojbanic Software
Community
Web/Email Forums
IRC Chat
Links
News
Dictionary
Swag
Multimedia
Lojbanic Texts
Audio
Wiki
Recent Changes
Popular Pages
How To Edit
The LLG
Official Projects
Publications
Donate!
Contact Us
Search Lojban Resources