Message-Id: <m0qSepf-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 26 Jul 1994 01:11:39 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: ga'i[nai], ke'u[nai], va'i[nai]
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1528
Lines: 29

To me , ke'u is used at the discourse level to say:  what I am about to say
is intended to have the same implication as what I said previously.  I am
repeating the point.  ke'unai is then specifically saying that I am
going off to a new and different point (though possibly on the same topic,
and hence not appropriate to ni'o).  I thus see ke'u as related to ni'o
but operating one notch down, and specifically allowing for reiteration
of a key point.

va'i (in other words) and va'inai (in the same words) also refer to a single
point.  va'i specifically says that I am trying to put the exact same point
acorss but to express/argue it differently.  This could be paraphrase, a
different example, or whatever (but it does not necessaarily imply that the
new statement is in greater detail - just that I have presumably recognized
that you might not see my argument as presented and that I need to present it
a different way to be sure.)

va'inai is used when paraphrase is NOT intended, possibly because the particular
words used are critical to the argument.  It more or less says "Let me reiterate
that ..." and the listner should presume that any slight differences in the
phraseology that occur in the restatement are NOT intended to change the
content - if they appear to, a question is in order (va'inaiki'a).

Oops - got the two backwards.  va'i currently is in the same worda and
va'inai in otehr words.  Clearly I don;t see much problem with what order
they occur in.

Have I confused the issue a bit more???

lojbab