Re: {du'u} (was Re: Quantifiers)

["Dylan P. Thurston" <dpt@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU>]

mi cusku di'e
 > > It can't, as far as I know.  (Well, maybe you could say
 > >
 > >         le du'u le cukta cu ka'e cpana le jubme cu fatci
 > >
 > > and then just elide the {ka'e}...)

.i la xorxes. cusku di'e
 > Why is the fact that the book can be there a fact, but the fact
 > that it actually is there is not a fact?

Suppose it's in the nature of this particular book to be capable of
lying on the table.  This nature is an unchanging thing and doesn't
depend on particular circumstances.  (I'm not sure if the book can be
innately capable of doing something like lying on the table.  But I'd
argue that {le du'u lo'e cukta cu ka'e te tcidu cu fatci}.)

 > co'o mi'e xorxes

mu'o mi'e. dilyn.