From mbays@freeshell.org Sat Sep 20 04:31:48 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 20 Sep 2003 04:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.37]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A0fxX-0002vE-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 04:31:28 -0700 Received: from [62.64.222.205] (helo=thedave.homelinux.org) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1A0fxR-0006oJ-T1 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:31:22 +0100 Received: from thedave.homelinux.org (IDENT:1001@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thedave.homelinux.org (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h8KCUTZ9031675 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:30:29 GMT Received: from localhost (martin@localhost) by thedave.homelinux.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Submit) with ESMTP id h8KCURQX031672 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:30:27 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: thedave.homelinux.org: martin owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:30:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Bays X-X-Sender: martin@thedave.homelinux.org To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Contradictorily negated modals (Was: ki'a ne'i la tiki. tiki. pembos.) In-Reply-To: <20030919133038.10277.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 6254 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mbays@freeshell.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list xorxes: > No, it affects "ki'u": > > ki'u: because ... > seki'u: therefore ... > ki'unai: in spite of ... > seki'unai: nevertheless ... > This has bothered me before. How can these definitions of contradictorily negated modals, as given by the ma'oste and cemented in usage, be justified in light of CLL 9:13 - which has {broda BAI ko'a} meaning precisely {ge broda ginai broda BAI ko'a}? I can't see any real way, even taking Grice into account, that that could justify the loaded "in spite" and "nevertheless" readings which usage seems to have accepted. Can it? Perhaps {to'e ki'u} and its like could be more reasonably read this way? Relatedly - is {BAInai broda} {ro da zo'u BAInai da broda} or just {BAInai zo'e broda}? e.g. does {ki'unai broda} mean "broda without any justification" or just "broda without justification [something glorked]"? An uncontentious one for the BF, perhaps, if it's not just obvious to the jbocre. Martin