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

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- Martin Bays <mbays@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 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}?

This is a clear case of CLL going against established tradition. {nai}
indicates "opposite" much more often than negation.

> 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?

I don't think it can.

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

One possible interpretation for the opposites is:

to'e rinka: x1 prevents x2 from happening (=fanta)
to'e mukti: x1 inhibits x3 from doing x2
to'e nibli: x1 denies x2 (= natfe)
to'e krinu: x1 is an objection to x2

That probably results in the "in spite of x1" reading when x2 is asserted.

> 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]"?

Probably the latter, which can eventually be glorked as the former.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com