On 23/03/2015 16:31, Jorge Llambías wrote:I've always though of {selja'e} as being a somewhat looser / less strict relation than {rinka}, as if it was something like {x1 .a lo selpau be x1 cu rinka x2}, so that one can say {lo nu carvi cu selja'e lo nu mi na klama}, where the connection between the two events is not clearly explained, and where it seems that "lo nu carvi" is not the only factor that have determined the event {lo nu mi klama} not to occur (another plausible factor could be "mi na djica lo nu mi se carvi"). But this impression that {selja'e} is looser than {rinka} is perhaps subjective, and maybe {rinka} can be used just as vaguely. But, isn't this second example (that with {kacna'u}) what {nibli} is for? I thought that banzu-nu (the version of {banzu} that parallels {sarcu}) was the event equivalent of {nibli}. mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. |