Subject: Re: Not because

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:17:44

la adam cusku di'e

>"ki'unai" (mu'inai, etc.) is often used for despite, but I don't think
>it means exactly that. According to the book, chapter 9, section 13,
>BAI + nai is a contradictory negation of the BAI cmavo.

I always thought of {ki'unai} as a Lojban idiom, I hadn't realized
that the book so flatly contradicted its traditional meaning.
UI compounds with -nai are often not analyzable, and I extended
that principle to BAIs. The problem of adhering too strictly to the
rule as expressed in the book is that it makes {ki'unai} fairly
useless and leaves us no easy way to handle the useful "despite".

>Thus "vy salci
>le se detri be li 4/7 ki'unai le nu vy na merko" means something like
>"le nu vy na merko na krinu le nu vy salci le se detri be li 4/7",

which is nothing like what we want to say.

>If I'm not mistaken, the selbri corresponding to "ki'unai" is "na
>krinu".

If we take the book at its word, you are right. If we consider
the traditional meaning of {ki'unai}, and its usage, then that
is not its corresponding selbri.

>"tolki'u" might mean "x1 is a reason that not x2", or maybe
>"not x1 is a reason for x2", or maybe something else.

I want a lujvo for "x1 and yet x2", which is similar to
"x2 in spite of x1". This is also close to your first option,
with something added: "xi is a reason that not x2, and yet x2".
Because {tolki'u} is a lujvo we do have some leeway to define
its meaning, so I think we should go for the most useful one,
and I can't think of another way to get "despite".

> > le nu vy nelci lei tanfagri kei enai le nu vy xabju le cnita be mi
> > cu krinu le nu vy salci le se detri be li vopi'eze
>
>It's still not directly asserted that they live below me. Maybe:
>
>vy salci le se detri be li 4/7 ki'u le nu nelci lei tanfagri
>iki'unaibo vy xabju ni'a mi

This might work with the book meaning of {ki'unai}, but certainly
not with its traditional meaning. Also, the {ki'u} of the first
clause is included in the relationship with the second clause,
which is definitely not wanted. We have three clauses, and the
first is in some relationship with each of the other two, but we
don't want 1st + 2nd in relationship with 3rd.

>(Not sure about "tanfagri". How about "fagjakne"?)

I had thought of using {jakne}, but it seemed to me that it
was more likely for {fagjakne} to refer to something else than
for {tanfagri}. I don't know much about rockets, but lots of
them seem to expel fire.

co'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.