Wiki page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumt...
> On 5/17/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I will ignore the
> > oddity of "erroneous usage" here, since I
> > understand the point: "not what the best
> users
> > (you and robin and maybe nick) would use it
> to
> > mean."
>
> Much of my own impromptu usage I consider
> erroneous
> when examined more carefully. We are simply not
> at the
> point were fluent-speaker intuition trumps
> rational analysis yet.
Nor would I want it to (until there are certified
fluent speakers in the appropriate sense (though
this getsmildly circular at some point — the
certification of the first few cases at least).
See below.
> > I covered that case — in the next
> > paragraph, I think. If they don't admit there
> > "mistake" and argue they are right (other
> than
> > "that's what the keyword said"(, then you
> have
> > more of a problem.
>
> Well, there are disagreements, of course. But
> in those
> cases the argument is never "that's how it is
> because
> that's how I use it". The arguments are about
> what is
> more useful, more regular, more in accordance
> with
> the baseline, etc. Nobody really appeals to
> speaker intuition.
Which of course ultimately comes down to the
judgments of those set up (more or less by
themselves with other acceding) as the arbitrors
of what is useful, regular or in accord with the
baselines (none of these being at all obvious --
though "useful" is related to actual use
somewhat).
>
> > Well, I don't think this is using {nai} to
> mark a
> > dual, it is just using the simplest
> combination
> > of {ri'a} and {nai}to make the most common
> such
> > expression — aided by the fact that the
> regular
> > forms either make no sense ("opposite of
> cause")
> > or are generally useless ("caused by not").
>
> The regular {ri'a nai} = "not caused by".
>
> I think "prevent" is a reasonable opposite of
> "cause", if
> not the only possible one.
>
"not caused by" is, as the discussion showed, not
very useful, nor is "caused by not." "prevent"
is the obvious polar opposite of "cause," at
least as far as utility goes. I do not deny that
{to'e ri'a nai} (left grouping, of course) means
"in spite of" in a totally regular way; I am only
claiming that {ri'a nai} is a reasonable form to
use for this notion on Zipfean grounds if not
other wise. And, of course, it has been around
in that sense for (I haven't checked this) about
40 years, whereas {to'e} at least is barely a
decade old.