From phma@ixazon.dynip.com Sun Jan 23 18:38:43 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phma.hn.org ([216.189.113.165] helo=blackcat.ixazon.lan)
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1Csu7g-0002X4-TU
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:38:37 -0800
Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 9267A5EAA; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:38:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.hn.org>
Organization: dis
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: "But if that were true..."
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:38:03 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <20050124022526.GX2342@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050124022526.GX2342@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200501232138.03723.phma@phma.hn.org>
X-archive-position: 9325
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: phma@phma.hn.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Sunday 23 January 2005 21:25, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> I found myself with:
>
>     mi pacna lo nu na broda
>
> Where broda was very complicated, and wanting to say "but *if* it
> were true, then".
>
> I used
>
>     .i ku'i lo ja'a se go'i ja'a mukti ...
>
> But I'm pretty sure that doesn't "fix" the na in the previous
> sentence.  I'm quite sick right now, and too brain-dead to figure
> this out on my own.  Help?

{lo ja'a se go'i} amounts to {lo nu na broda}, since {pacna} wasn't negated 
the {ja'a} has no effect. I would say {lo nu ja'a go'a}. {go'i} repeats 
{pacna}, and {go'e} whatever top-level bridi preceded that, so {broda}, being 
embedded, is fair game for {go'a}.

phma
-- 
.i le babzba ba zbasu
lo jbazbabu lo babjba