Wiki page unless changed
wrote:
>
> pc:
> > We are agreed more or less that the "unless"
> > component needs marking off, but are of
> different
> > minds about how strong that mark need be. I
> > think we agree that full world- constructing
> > {da'i} is stronger than needed, xorxes wants
> it
> > stronger than I think is necessary. I would
> now
> > go with just the distinguishing mark of "but"
> > over "and," {ku'i} — expanding its meaning
> > somewhat, to be sure.
>
> I think that's a good idea. Let's see how it
> would work:
>
> mi'o klama ija ku'i carvi
> We go, or, in contrast, it rains.
> We go unless it rains.
>
> This will also allow us to reverse the order:
>
> ga ku'i carvi gi mi'o klama
> Either, in contrast, it rains, or we go.
> Unless it rains, we go.
>
> This suggests that {ge ku'i ... gi ...} can
> also be used
> as a general "even though":
>
> ge ku'i carvi gi mi'o klama
> Both, in contrast, it rains, and we go.
> Even though it rains, we go.
>
> (Of course we also have {seki'unai},
> {semu'inai}, {seri'anai},
> {seni'inai} for this.)
>
Hmmm! Nice!. I'm not sure I agree that they
amount to the same thing, but they are clearly
related (and that sentence seems to fit in pretty
well).
Playing with the origianl "but" {e ku'i}, I ran
across the following, which seems different and,
indeed, to actually involve subjunctives
(certainly in English) "He would have come, but
he was tired." This looks like "Had he not been
tired, he would have come" with the usual
implication (but it seems to be more in the
English original) that the protasis is false,
i.e., that he was tired. Question, does' {da'i}
always mean that the postulated state does not
hold? Surely not, since general laws are true
even when we are testing them (making the
condition true). So, {da'i} at most pragmatically
implicates contrary-to-factness and that
implication can be overridden somehow.