From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon Nov 22 18:14:52 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CWQCZ-0000Xy-9k
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:14:43 -0800
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:14:43 -0800
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Archivist/Founders: {ri'a nai} vs. {se mau nai}
Message-ID: <20041123021443.GI24376@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20041122050936.GY28493@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20041122171220.1162.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041122171220.1162.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 9037
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:12:20AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> 
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > Then we would have that:
> > 
> > {to'e ri'a} is "in opposition to (your asking)" 
> >
> > {no'e ri'a} is "in indifference to (your asking)"
> >
> > {na'e ri'a} == {ri'a nai} is "not because of (your asking)"
> >
> > {je'a ri'a} is "definately because of (your asking)"
> > 
> > Any objections?
> 
> How does {to'e rinka} become "in opposition to"? 

{to'e} is "opposite", and apparently I had that on the brain.  I was
just going for "despite".

> My first guess for {to'e rinka} would be {se rinka}, the opposite
> of the cause is the effect. 

That's net nearly as useful, of course.

> Saying that "despite" is the opposite of "because" is like saying
> that "all" is the opposite of "some", or that "and" is the
> opposite of "or", or that "must" is the opposite of "may". They
> are in some kind of opposition (they are duals) but I wouldn't use
> {to'e} for it. 

Do you have a better way to say "despite"?

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/