WikiDiscuss

> > > di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai mi co'u xagji
> > > Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger ending.
>
> It's "motive therefore", which is basically the same as "results
> in".
>
> In fact, the keyword for {se mu'i nai} is wrong prima facia.
>
> Changed from "Not motivated by..." to "Not motive for...".

So, "sometimes, I eat but this does not motivate (me) to
stop being hunger"?

Does eating ever motivate someone to stop being hungry?
Is one hungry by volition?

> > > !! Examples of se ki'u nai Usage
> > >
> > > ''.i se ki'u nai bo mi bandu le nobli ke lojbo bangu lo vlatai
> > > zekri''
> > >
> > With {bo} it means something like:
> >
> > "That's regardless of my defense of the noble Lojban language
> > against word-shape crimes."
>
> Ah, so it is.
>
> Hmmm. Is the "mi bandu" asentence asserted or negated or neither?

Asserted.

What is negated is the causal relationship with the preceding
sentence.

> > > !! Examples of fau Usage
> > >
> > > Artificial:
> > >
> > > .i fau le nu mi sanli binxo kei mi cusku le du'u mo'u citka
> > >
> > > With the event of standing up, I express that the eating is over.
> >
> > That would work if {cusku} meant "x1 expresses x2", but {cusku}
> > means "x1 expresses something with x2",
>
> I still don't agree, nor do I find your statement to make much
> sense.

The x2 of cusku is paradigmatically a text. A text is not
something you express, it is something you say in
order to express something else. The keyword "express"
for {cusku} is misleading.

You say "thank you" to express gratitude.
You say "I am done eating" to express that you are done eating.
You don't express words, you express something _with_ words.

> > so what you want to say is:
> >
> > mi cusku le nu mi sanli binxo kei fau le nu mo'u citka
> >
> > "I express (something) with my standing up, the event that eating
> > is over."
>
> That seems totally non-sensical to me. You can't express an event.

Right, you express _with_ an event, just as you express _with_
words.

{cusku} means "x1 expresses with x2", not "x1 expresses x2".

> > > mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi ponse lo karce
> >
> > It would make more sense with {na ponse}.
>
> Does this work?:
>
> mi cadzu se ja'e nai lo nu mi na ponse lo karce
>
> I walk, but not because I don't own a car.

Yes.

> I walk regardless of whether or not I own a car.

That would be slightly different.

mu'o mi'e xorxes