On Jan 2, 2008 9:31 AM, Jorge Llambías <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Today, Mary is nervous about having cancer, under conditions of seeing
> the
> > doctor.
> >
> > Her current mental state? Unknown.
>
> She is now nervous but maybe not?
>
> I'm not convinced that's how "under conditions" places are supposed to
> work. For me, if we are told {la meris nau ca'a xanka lo nu ka'e kenra my
> kei da} then we are definitely being told that her mental state now is
> one of nervousness, and that the possibility of her having cancer is what
> is making her nervous now, and that information we are given would not
> be changed if "da" was made more explicit or less.
>
> > Can we tell if she has gone to the
> > doctor, or will be going to see the doctor tomorrow, or ever? No. But
> we
> > might be using this sentence to explain why Mary HASN'T gone to a doctor
> in
> > 20 years, because she might have cancer. As long as she doesn't go, she
> > isn't worried about the possibility (blissful ignorance).
>
> But then you don't agree after all with my characterization of ko'a
> and ko'e in {ko'a nau ca'a xanka ko'e ko'i}. You are saying that as
> long as ko'i does not obtain, we don't claim that ko'e is actually
> making ko'a nervous at all. It's just the potentiality of her being
> nervous that is claimed to be actual and current.
>
By the way, if we know that the terxanka is true, then the nervousness
is actual, not potential:
"la meris ba klama lo mikce .i la meris xanka lo za'i selkenra kei lo nu
go'i" (Mary is going to the doctor. Mary is nervous about having cancer
BECAUSE of this).
is functionally equivalent in meaning to "la meris xanka lo za'i selkenra
.iki'ubo my ba klama lo mikce" -> (Mary is nervous about having cancer
BECAUSE she will be going the doctor.)
--gejyspa
