History: BPFK Section: Modal Aspects

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
History: BPFK Section: Modal Aspects

Source of version: 17 (current)

Search Lojban Resources
