Re: modals tagging selbri question...

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

>But with modals it works almost the other way around; you can
>think of the selbri as modifying *them*, in a way.  "mi ka'e
>citka" describes a capability; "mi pu'o citka" describes
>something that is fixin' to happen (which might not actually
>come to pass); "mi na'e citka" describes something
>other than eating.  I think the modals are all pretty
>consistent this way: "mi <modal> citka" is not necessarily
>a kind of eating.

Indeed, one way to think about modals logically is that they constitute a
totally different logical claim that is being abrreviated for purposes
of efficient language.  The nature of the abbreviation is sometimes tied to
the type of modal.

mi ka'e citka =
mi kakne lenu mi citka

mi pu'o citka =
lenu mi citka cu fasnu gi'e balvi gi'e na purci gi'e na cabna
(more or less)

Alas Chris, "na'e" isn't a modal really, and IS interpreted according to
tanru rules (unlike na), so you may have been misleading in that remark.
On the other hand it is like some of the modals capable of modifying the
semantics of the unmarked statement, so perhaps it has some modal aspects.
But then it is quite possible for any tanru that is a "broda brode" to not
necessarily imply that "brode" alone is true.  Not all tanru are implied
restrictions on the modificand, even though this is the norm that is
assumed by convention.  (See the many language examples in the refgrammar
chapter on tanru for some other kinds).

lojbab----
lojbab                                                lojbab@access.digex.net
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA                        703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab
    or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/";