[lojban] Contradictorily negated modals (Was: ki'a ne'i la tiki. tiki. pembos.)

[Martin Bays <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

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}?

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?

Perhaps {to'e ki'u} and its like could be more reasonably read this way?

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]"?

An uncontentious one for the BF, perhaps, if it's not just obvious to the
jbocre.


Martin