Re: ni'i vs naja

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la kris cusku di'e

> But the reference grammar paper "From Boston via the road go I" says:
> >7.4)    la sokrates. morsi binxo ni'i le nu la sokrates. remna
> >    Socrates dead-became with-logical-justification Socrates is-human.
> >    Socrates died because Socrates is human.

Well, I don't see how an event can be a logical justification, and even
if {du'u} was used, the fact that Socrates is human by itself does not
logically entail that Socrates died. I would have used {ki'u} there.

> I've also been using ni'i in this slightly fuzzier way.  My text is full of
> ".iseni'ibo" (annoyingly unzipfean as it is .uinai).

I know, I've read it :)
I guess it will be a matter of usage deciding, but I don't see why you prefer
ni'i to ki'u.

> It's a matter of definition of ni'i/nibli/entail/imply, I guess, but I lean
> more towards Nick's roomier definition.

What do you leave for ki'u/krinu? And what do you use when you are really
talking about logical implications?

> I should say, though, that I disagree with Nick about ni'i always being used
> in preference to naja.  They're different syntactically if nothing else, and
> if it turns out that they mean the same thing, why use ".ini'ibo" if
> ".inaja" is shorter?  By my own arguments I guess I should have been using
> ".ijanai" instead of ".iseni'ibo", but then I'm not fluent yet either...

But they are different.

With {inaja} you are saying that if the first is true, then the second one
is also true. If the first is false, the second one can be anything.

With {ini'ibo} you say that both the first one and the second one are true,
and furthemore that the second one is logically implied by the first one
(or is that {iseni'ibo}?, the convention is confusing).

> BTW I'm assuming that these are equivalent:
>
>     X nibli Y
>     Y ni'i ledu'u X
>     X .ini'ibo Y

That would be the logical convention, but who said that the logical
language is logical?  :)

> The reference grammar paper has a little table like this, but it's not
> consistent with the examples.

Unfortunately, I think that the convention for {.ini'ibo} is the opposite.
Does the grammar paper really have that table?

Jorge