From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Apr 08 17:17:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 9 Apr 2001 00:17:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 72646 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2001 00:17:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Apr 2001 00:17:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.122) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Apr 2001 00:17:45 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:17:44 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.44 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:17:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.44] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Not because Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:17:44 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2001 00:17:44.0387 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F85D130:01C0C08A] From: "Jorge Llambias" 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.