From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRC_1_vlBBoESYs9Vw@googlegroups.com Wed Oct 20 06:17:02 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P8YXL-0002o3-Ej; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:17:02 -0700 Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15sf1825331wwe.16 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:16:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=luLFfIY+sQP+K42MAlfNnBtCN4hGeIUhAjUA7QyCWdE=; b=PjVx+Gf6982XAoEDxgpyql/MCivtdl0ZNU2BrxaTTgKI87J5APz4Vgq03IEcinN3pS L5pUQoq1I8H/xIw6vzsDxiLsu9HXWoQAIy463gEB0jcqp/8xwnAeNNK/qZJOQPGwpwHu ShTkFjoTmpyjKGfMgjzMz7n7RKFKhZsc5JJac= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=u4HXR0jaPh3NRmI3CcwKjgwYHPOyTqVKd8n9TBYa9BUIx74nLg8lfyYaYN2zqOyksH nXX66miO2s69t/oItvIWg48dL0CA3i/2zrPwNol46Ama963ZCesy3hzcJJ6OJhklV5h+ mcyRLh5ojXA3bYsaE7gabVFIcybRU7rGIYhis= Received: by 10.216.237.89 with SMTP id x67mr866466weq.13.1287580607484; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:16:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.242.202 with SMTP id i52ls633157wer.0.p; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.173.67 with SMTP id u45mr383142wel.7.1287580606347; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.173.67 with SMTP id u45mr383141wel.7.1287580606306; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f47.google.com (mail-ww0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id l5si65331weq.7.2010.10.20.06.16.44; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.47; Received: by wwb28 with SMTP id 28so3204198wwb.4 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:16:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.128.131 with SMTP id k3mr2547634wbs.66.1287580604210; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.32.140 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Oct 2010 06:16:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:16:44 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] despite ... From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Remo Dentato wrote: > What would be the best way to translate "despite" in a sentence like: > > "I like you despite your bad behavior" > > I used {gu mi nelci do gi do maljikca} I never remember whether in "gu X gi Y" it is X or Y whose truth value is irrelevant to the truth value of the whole. I'd like to think it's X, because it is the one next to the "u", but I have the nagging suspicion that it may be defined the other way in CLL. > and I've been suggested by > Pierre to use BAI like {mi nelci do mu'inai lenu do maljikca} or {mi > nelci do ki'unai maljikca} but I can't decide which one better renders > the original. With "gu ... gi ... " you are saying that you like them, and you are not saying one way or the other whether their behavior is bad or not, nor are you implying that there is or could be any causal connection between them. (One may assume that, since you are putting the two together, you may be suggesting that there might have been a causal connection, and since you used the ja'a form of "do maljikca" one might assume that you think it is actually the case, but you are not in a logical way asserting any of that.) > Using modals seems to more like saying "it's not because you misbheave > that I like you". That's how I would analyze it to. > Has anyone a suggestion for this case? "to'e mu'i nai": "I like you not prevented/demotivated by your misbehaviour" The problem is that, in Lojban tradition, "mu'i nai" itself has been analyzed as what should have been "to'e mu'i nai", so you will find it widely used that way. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.