BPFK Super-Section: BAI sumtcita
wrote:
>
> 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
This is not exactly right. It is not the absence
of the cause that generates despite, but rather
its presence without effect. If the potential
cause did not occur, we might say "not z (namely
y) because not x" where x is a cause of z. But
we wouldn't say despite, since that requires
(even etymologically) x to be around to be
overriden or whatever it is. (The fact that "not
z because not x" where x is a cause of z is also
bad reasoning — unless x is also a necessary
cause of z — does contribute to this not quite
working as well.)
As for the convoluted nature of the rest of the
derivation, that is what pragmatic derivations
generally look like, requiring as they do looking
into unasked and often barely answerable
questions about intentions and the like --
mysterious creatures all.