Re: whether (was Re: ni, jei, perfectionism)

["Jorge J. Llambías" <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

And:
>What I am saying is that I don't think you can take all the
>different places where Q-kau is used, contrast them with
>q-kau-less counterparts, and then find some element of meaning
>that Q-kau contributes in every case.

All right, that may be.  But you said that the Q-kau of {frica}
was essentially unlike the Q-kau of epistemic predicates.
That's what I'm not convinced of.

 >> But that's cheating, you're changing the predicate from {toltugni}
>> to {na tugni}. If that's allowed,
>
>It's allowed if toltugni entails na tugni. I think it does.

Yes, I think so too.

 >I think {frica} is {na dunli}, isn't it? Is there a difference?

Ok, but I was trying for a general expansion. If I expand {frica}
in terms of {dunli}, or {toltugni} in terms of {tugni}, then that
doesn't help me to find a general expression for any {broda}.
It may very well be that there isn't one.

co'o mi'e xorxes