WikiDiscuss

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:05:40PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > > 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"?

There's supposed to be a lo nu in there. Whoops.

di'i nai mi citka se mu'i nai lo nu mi co'u xagji

Sometimes, I eat but this does not result in my hunger ending.

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

No, actually. Whoops. I guess that would be se ri'a nai.

Suggestions?

> > > > !! 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.

Then I've changed my mind; I stand by my translation, except
s/motivation/reason/

Regardless of that reason, I defend the noble Lojban
language against word-shape crimes.

"That" being the provious sentence. I also removed "will".

> > > > !! 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.

s/du'u/se du'u/

> > > > 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.

How so? The causal relationship is not asserted. That's
"regardless".

-Robin