From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Sat Sep 20 12:35:06 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 8330 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2003 19:35:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 20 Sep 2003 19:35:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2003 19:35:05 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 1A0nVY-00065B-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:35:04 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A0nVG-00064R-00; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:34:46 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:34:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41902.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.153]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1A0nUv-00063M-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:34:25 -0700 Message-ID: <20030920193354.54863.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.69.6.33] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:33:54 PDT Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:33:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [lojban] Re: Contradictorily negated modals (Was: ki'a ne'i la tiki. tiki. pembos.) To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 6256 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20738 --- Martin Bays wrote: > 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}? This is a clear case of CLL going against established tradition. {nai} indicates "opposite" much more often than negation. > 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? I don't think it can. > Perhaps {to'e ki'u} and its like could be more reasonably read this way? One possible interpretation for the opposites is: to'e rinka: x1 prevents x2 from happening (=fanta) to'e mukti: x1 inhibits x3 from doing x2 to'e nibli: x1 denies x2 (= natfe) to'e krinu: x1 is an objection to x2 That probably results in the "in spite of x1" reading when x2 is asserted. > 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]"? Probably the latter, which can eventually be glorked as the former. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com