Re: A prioi vs. A posteriori ?

On Friday 07 February 2003 5:22 pm, James Landau wrote:
> In a message dated Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:10:04 -0600, Nik Taylor <
>
> yonjuuni@EARTHLINK.NET> parisen:
> >Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> >> As I said, the past tense of the auxiliaries has nearly taken a life of
>
> its
>
> >> own. But tense agreement still exists as far as I know (the past of "I
> >> do
>
> it
>
> >> because I can" is "I did it because I could". I doubt "I did it because
> >> I
>
> can"
>
> >> would have the same meaning, or would even be simply correct)
> >
> >"I did it because I can" is indeed ungramatical, at least for me. I
> >wouldn't be surprised, tho, if there was a dialect somewhere that
> >allowed that.
>
>  I actually decided to keep each verb in Kankonian in its real tense.
> Therefore, you say "Ad alhas wan azirethen az penkas abamas bolmas" (She
> taught the class that starfish eat clams) instead of "Ad alhas wan
> azirethen az penkas abamen bolmas" (She taught the class that starfish ate
> clams). If a Kankonian person heard you use the "abamen" form, s/he'd think
> that starfish no longer pry open clam shells, perhaps due to a major upset
> in the ecosystem. Also suggestions take the future tense in Kankonian, as
> do any sentences with the word "wafin" (to suggest).
So, I take it that if Starfish went extinct, the latter sentence would be
acceptable...