Wiki page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumtcita changed
> > lo datni ka'e djica le ka zifre du'o la
> rodjer.klark
> > ''Data is capable of wanting to be free,
> according to Rodger Klark.''
>
> {du'o la rodjer klark} is part of the zifre
> bridi there.
>
> Even if you add {kei} though, ka'e would have
> scope over du'o:
> "It is possible that (according to RC data
> wants to be free)."
>
> Taking {du'o} to mean {fi'o jinvi} and not
> {fi'o djuno}, to get the
> English gloss I would say:
>
> du'o la rodjer.klark lo datni kakne lo nu
> djica lo nu zifre
>
Which raises an interesting question about scopes
(again) and afterthought additions. How do we
cut off the scope of some operator (tense/modal,
say) to add something which has even longer
scope. Strictly speaking, even placing the
mdoifier at the front ought not technically to
help since modals behave more or less like {na}
(with restrictions that really need better
specification). In this particular case, there
seems to be a way out, however {lo datni ka'e
djica le ka zifre sei la rodjer.klark xusra} (or
{jinvi} or whatever {du'o} is filling in for).
And the {sei} chunk floats free in the sentence.
But this is not a general solution.