From phma@ixazon.dynip.com Sun Nov 21 20:59:46 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [216.189.121.177] (helo=blackcat.ixazon.lan)
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CW6Ic-0006J6-SO
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:59:39 -0800
Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 5961C8424; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:59:06 +0000 (UTC)
From: Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.hn.org>
Organization: dis
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Archivist/Founders: {ri'a nai} vs. {se mau nai}
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:59:05 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <20041120170505.GO28493@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <41A10BCE.1090509@lojban.org> <20041122044115.GR28493@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
In-Reply-To: <20041122044115.GR28493@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200411212359.05211.phma@phma.hn.org>
X-archive-position: 9029
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 21 November 2004 23:41, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> Because "ri'a nai" should be "not caused by".  IOW:
>
>     mi klama ri'a nai lo nu do cpedu
>
> is "I came, but not because you asked".  This is *VERY* different
> "I came despite the fact that you asked".  That it's the latter and
> not the former seems a wart.

Is {to'e ri'a} a good way to say "despite"?

phma
-- 
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci