BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita
wrote:
>
> > > For {BAI nai}, all we need to do is find
> the corresponding
> > > {broda}.
> > >
> > > mau = fi'o zmadu
> > > maunai - fi'o na'e zmadu
> > >
> > > ri'a - fi'o rinka ("x1 causes x2")
> > > ri'anai - fi'o na'e fanta ("x1 doesn't
> prevent x2")
> > robin:
> > Right, see, umm, my problem is *that's not a
> pattern*. I'd like to
> > be able to make a general statement about
> what BAI+NAI means, but I
> > can't.
>
> Right. That's just to show where the pattern
> breaks down.
> The only kind of general statement you can make
> is
> something like "NAI changes the0 underlying
> selbri of the
> tag into a selbri that is somehow opposite to
> the original".
>
The case of {ri'a nai} as "despite" seems to be
"would have caused the opposite {na'e} or {to'e}
but failed" This seems to derive pragmatically
from "is not the cause of." Ask why someone
would mention a non-cause for something that
happens. One possibility is that it could be a
cause but is not in this case either because it
did not occur to be a cause or because, though it
occurred, the event was differently caused. We
would only use the first case if the sumti here
were so usual and expected a cause as to set a
case without it apart. But then the significant
way to convey this information is simply that
that event did not occur — maybe with an "even
though." The causal aspect is needless
information for the assumed cooperative
interlocutor to give. The second — the causal
event did occur but did not function causally in
this case — is saying more than we can guarantee
generally: if a potential cause is present, how
are we to be sure it was not efficacious, even if
there are other adequate causes around? This
leaves the possibility that it is not the sort of
thing that could be a cause. In which case, why
mention it? The most likely answer would seem to
be that it is present and that it is generally a
cause of an event incompatible with what actually
occurred. So, even though a cause of not-a was
present, a managed to occur.
On the other hand, you might just notice that
these definitions were made by old-time
Lojbanists, folks in the tradition of JCB, whose
sensitivity to the nuances of word ranks up there
with Mrs. Malaprop, James Fennimore Cooper, and
the Duke of Bilgewater. That is, even though
they pointed to the third case above, they meant
the second or even the first, which fit into the
pattern without calculation.