On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Micha= el Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:

=A0 No, he said NONselki= 9;u (i.e. selki'u no da, hte way I rendered it), not NUNselki'u (lo= nu selki'u)
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0--gejyspa

<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Remo Dentato <= rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:

Done with {nunselki= 9;u}. Thanks!

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:53 AM, Remo D= entato <rdentato@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry tsani I'= ;ve seen those {makau} and {mokau} used around but I should have missed the= ir introduction. I don't get what a direct+indirect question is suppose= d to mean.

As for "unjustified" I will probably go with xorxes sug= gestion, it is probably the cleanest way to say it.

Thanks.

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:23 AM, tsani nicte <ni= ctytan@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jan 28, 2013, at 17:40, Remo Dentato= <rdentato@gmail= .com> wrote:

> I see what you mean about the scalar opposite of {krinu}. =A0What if I= had said: {lo broda cu na na selki'u} -> .. is not (not justified)<= br> > I want to render the double negation.
>
> I might also have used {lo nu mi gasnu kei na rincau} =A0"my doin= g is not lacking-reason". =A0Maybe this would have been clearer.
>

{rincau} doesn't really solve the problem, because it's forma= l definition, assuming jvajvo, is going to be {ka ko'a ko'e ce'= ai ko'a claxu lo ka ce'u krinu ko'e}, which translates into Eng= lish as "x1 lacks the property of x1 justifying x2." Now, you hav= e an elided {se}, which is permissible with the proviso that the lujvo with= out the SE be useless. {rincau} with the definition I gave *is* useful, I&#= 39;d say, and you should therefore not elide the {se}, I think.

Now, you are allowed, when using ka and du'u abstractions in the formal= definition, to use {makau} instead of ce'u with the same rules for eli= ding SE. Likewise, I think that the version with the ce'u could also be= useful, and it is therefore not advisable to define using makau.

Next, if you had decided on using makau, there are some ideas bouncing arou= nd on what makau really does, and it seems like there some connection to {d= a}. In particular:
{.i ko'a claxu lo ka ce'u broda makau} ~> {.i ko'a broda nod= a}

That leads me to agree with xorxes: nonselki'u is the lujvo for the job= , if you absolutely want to use a lujvo.

If you want to render the double negation without using a lujvo, you could = use {na} twice, but I think that it'd be more interesting to play aroun= d with the quantifier:
.i lo nu mi gasnu cu se krinu naku no da

Finally, and on a different note, instead of {lo nu mi gasnu}, how about {l= o du'u mi mokau zukte}, which translates to "[The fact that] I did= what I did."

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
=A0
=A0