WikiDiscuss

pc:
> The case of {ri'a nai} as "despite" seems to be
> "would have caused the opposite {na'e} or {to'e}
> but failed"

i.e. "...did not prevent..."

X causes Y == Y because of X
X doesn't-prevent Y == Y despite X

> This seems to derive pragmatically
> from "is not the cause of."

In the same sense in which "some don't" derives
pragmatically from "some do".

But there is a more interesting direct relationship.
"because" and "despite" are duals:
because = NOT despite NOT
despite = NOT because NOT

> Ask why someone
> would mention a non-cause for something that
> happens.

Perhaps because it may seem like a possible cause?
"I went not-because she asked me to" (She didn't
in fact ask me to go, you may think that I would
only go if she asked me to, but in fact I went
because I wanted, so not-because she asked.

> 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.

Right. That would be the normal usage, I would think.

> But then the significant
> way to convey this information is simply that
> that event did not occur — maybe with an "even
> though."

Not sure why that would be _the_ significant way,
but it would be another way, yes.

> 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.

That seems very convoluted.

> 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.

• "Despite" should derive from a BAI based on

{fanta}, but there is no such BAI.

• "Despite" is probably needed more often than

"not-because".

• "Despite" is "not-because not"

All that probably conspired to define {ri'anai}
and the others as "despite".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com