gleki wrote:
> looks more like another semantic subclass of UI (not attitudinal but
> grammatically the same maybe UI3a/UI3b), pei?

It does have the tripartite scale of UI though...

I could also see it operating as a sort of discursive. Again, though, the
issue is that the things to which it can meaningfully and perhaps even
grammatically attach are highly restricted.

What if we make it so that it can attach to whole constructs too and
assert their existence/occurrence/truth (or - perhaps more usefully -
abstain from/explicitly reject such existence/occurrence/truth according
to and depending on the scale attached to this word's tail)? For example,
I could say "lo mlatu cu klama ti dau'ocu'i .ijanaibo ri cliva ta" for "If
the cat leaves there, then it is coming here (but I am not asserting that
this coming is actually happening)". Likewise, "la .maik. kuje la .nykOl.
dau'ocu'i cu klama" would mean something like "Mike and Nicole are going,
if Nicole exists" (caveats: (1) This is not a logical 'IF' statement; (2)
Mike may or may not be going alone; (3) I think that this statement would
mean "Mike is going regardless of whether Nicole exists - but if she does,
then she is going too", but I am not sure; (4) of course, they need not be
going together in this construction; (5) I am assuming that "dau'ocu'i" is
binding only to "la .nykOl." and not to the whole argument of "la .maik.
kuje la .nykOl."). How do you feel about this?