WikiDiscuss

While I am glad that this mess is settling down,
the whole dispute seems to me to be based on a
false assumption, namely that there is some fixed
connection between BAI and heuristically noted
BRIVLA. this assumption means that frequently
usedc notions are hard to formulate and rare
(typically never used) ones are easy. The loose
association approach — essentially that of CLL
-- makes sure the ones we use get in and ignores
the other possibilities. Of course it means we
have to know what we are saying before we say it
but that is merely normal in natural languages
and usual in constructed ones.

---

<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:28:50AM -0500,
> Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > On Monday 22 November 2004 21:08, Robin Lee
> Powell wrote:
> > > {mi klama mu'i nai lo nu mi nelci} is "I
> go, although I don't
> > > want to", or "I go, it is not the case that
> I want to", or "I
> > > don't go, though I want to"?
> >
> > "I go, but not because I want to."
>
> Agreed.

Here is a case of a rare construction with an
easy format. Maybe not really rare but probably
less common than "despite" (the CLL gloss).

> > "I go, although I don't want to" is "mi klama
> mu'inai lo nu mi na
> > nelci".
>
> No, that Lojban is "I go, but not because I
> don't want to", which is
> kind of non-sensical. "I go, although I don't
> want to" is
> "despite", and is much, much harder than that.
>
> > "I go, it is not the case that I want to" is
> "mi klama .i mi na
> > nelci", if I understand you right.
>
> That's kind of trivial, but yeah.
>
> > "I don't go, though I want to" is "mi na'e
> klama mu'inai lo nu mi
> > nelci" or "mi klama mu'inai lo nu mi nelci
> kei naku".
>
> Nope, that's "despite" again. Yours says "I
> other-than go, but not
> because I want to" (was there something wrong
> with "na"??) and "I
> go, but not because I want to" (na ku at the
> end dose nothing,
> IIRC).
>
> I'm piggybacking on this for a mini-essay on
> the topic I wrote this
> morning. It turns out that "despite" is a
> rather complicated
> concept.
>
> I'm working from point-form notes here, so my
> apologies if it
> stinks.
>
> We basically have five cases to cover: cause,
> prevent, does not
> cause, despite with occurence, and despite
> without occurence. That
> last is what is normally meant by "despite".

Nope. Not in English (if I understand what you
are saying). If you mean that "Y despite X" can
be true if X does not occur (or, of course, if Y
does not) that is some different convcept from
usual despite, which requires both — and a
usual almost causal connection from X to Y.

> The second-last is
> what people have been treating "despite" to
> mean.

Treating because (if I understand your remark
correctly) it is what it means: "despite X" when
X does not occur makes no sense — it isn't there
to spite.

> lo nu ja'a/na X cu rinka lo nu na Y == X/not-X
> causes not-Y ==
> X/not-X prevents Y

Well, "prevent" is a little strong, since it
suggests that Y was in the offing, which, in this
irrealis discussion, is not guaranteed. That is,
to say that X (say) prevents Y means not only
that X causes ~Y but also that ~X allows Y
("allows" being another concept roughly "causes
neither Y nor ~Y")

> lo nu ja'a/na X cu rinka lo nu ja'a Y ==
> X/not-X causes Y
>
> lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu Y == X does not cause
> Y
>
> lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu na Y == X does not
> prevent Y == Y may or
> may not occur, but it's despite X == despite
> without occurence

This use of "despite" is not English, if I
understand what you are saying, which — since
this is all irrealis — I may not.

> Y .i je lo nu X cu na rinka lo nu Y == Y
> occurs, and X does not
> prevent it == despite with occurence (because
> "lo nu" clauses are
> irrealis).

This misses "despite" again. It needs for X to
occur as well. Of course, X may not cause Y
simply because X does not occur, but that is not
"despite X"

> Now, some of these are fairly easy to translate
> into BAI style.
> "cause" is just {ri'a}. "does not cause" is
> just {ri'a nai}.
>
> "prevent" is harder, assuming you want to use
> {ri'a} and not {se
> ri'a} because you have to negate the main
> bridi, so the BAI alone
> can't do it.
>
> na Y ri'a lo nu ja'a/na X == (not-)X prevents Y
>
> I see no way to do despite-without-occurence
> with BAI tags.

Good, since I can't think of any interesting case
for using it.

> So far as I can tell, despite cannot be done
> using BAI tags alone,
> at all. The best I have for "despite with
> occurence" (who cares
> about without??) is
>
> X do'e lo nu Y na rinka lo nu na no'a

An argument for loosening up the BAI-BRIVLA
connection (or rather leaving it in the loose
form it had originally: CLL is much tighter than
Loglan already). Again, not "despite," since Y
can fail to cause ~X simply by not occurring.

> This could also be done with va'o.
>
> I find it a bit unsatisfying, so here's another
> option:
>
> Suppose we allow:
>
> lo nu X to'e rinka lo nu Y == X prevents Y ==
> lo nu X cu rinka lo nu
> na Y
I'm not sure this is a good "polar opposite" but
then that notion is vague enough to work (why so
liberal here but not with {ri'a}?).

> This means that Y to'e ri'a X == na Y ri'a X,
> which is definately a
> bit wierd because you have a BAI clause
> invalidating the main bridi,
> but I can't imagine another use for "to'e
> rinka", so maybe it's not
> so bad.

How much worse can it be than taking back the
assertion you just made? To be sure, that
happens in other cases as well, but rather more
systematically ({na.a} and the like).

> Then we can do:
>
> lo nu X na to'e rinka lo nu Y == Y to'e ri'a
> nai X == Y occurs, and
> it is not the case that X prevents it == Y
> despite X

The first identity is, of course, not identity
but just the BRIVLA-BAI connection, since the
first sentence does not assert either X or Y
while the second asserts Y (only then denies it
-- messy: so it says something definite about Y,
which the first does not). Neither asserts X,
which is needed for "despite."
> -Robin
>
>
>