From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Nov 21 20:42:22 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 37515 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2004 04:42:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Nov 2004 04:42:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2004 04:42:21 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CW61j-00063a-V3 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:42:12 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CW612-00062E-QL; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:41:28 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:41:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CW60p-000620-Qx for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:41:16 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:41:15 -0800 Message-ID: <20041122044115.GR28493@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20041120170505.GO28493@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <41A10BCE.1090509@lojban.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41A10BCE.1090509@lojban.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i X-archive-position: 9028 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.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: 23431 On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 04:42:38PM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >I'm looking at the BAI* cmavo, and I notice that {ri'a nai} (and > >{ki'u nai}, and so on) all mean something like "despite (tagged > >sumti)", whereas the only non-causative BAI NAI sumti ({se mau > >nai} and {se ma'e nai} mean something like "it is not the case > >that (tagged sumti)". > > > >The "despite" thing seems to be a huge wart, and I'm wondering if > >you guys had anything in mind for BAI+NAI *in general*. > > But I should think that the causals will be more or less in line > with whatever you come up with - I believe that we found that the > semantics of "despite" and "nevertheless" are predictable from > contradictory negation of sumti. You say that they are a "wart", > but how so? 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. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/