From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Nov 21 21:00:42 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 21901 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2004 05:00:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2004 05:00:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 05:00:41 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CW6JZ-0006Lb-31 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:00:37 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CW6Io-0006Jd-Hj; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:59:50 -0800 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) Organization: dis 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 X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Pierre Abbat From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@phma.hn.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Archivist/Founders: {ri'a nai} vs. {se mau nai} X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 23432 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