to'e and causation sumtcita compounds

[guskant]

We have agreement on the meanings of compounds of causation sumtcita.

http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Causation_sumtcita#Impact

ri'a == with cause

ri'anai == not with cause (regardless of cause)

to'eri'a == prevented by

to'eri'anai == not prevented by (despite)

However, the page includes neither examples nor detailed explanations for the cases of {to'e...}.

I think of preparing another page for that purpose, but I need your opinion especially on my understanding about {to'eki'u}, {to'emu'i}, {to'eni'i}, {to'eri'a} as well as {to'eseja'e}.

I think they are meaningful only in the scope of negation.

For example, let's examine the following sentences.

1. Lojban sentences for "I give up sleeping because of your loud noise."

1-1. {ki'u} in affirmative sentence.

{mi radycru lo nu sipna kei ki'u lo nu do cladu}

I give up sleeping because of your loud noise.

Reasonable.

1-2. {to'eki'u} in affirmative sentence.

{mi radycru lo nu sipna kei to'eki'u lo nu do cladu}

I give up sleeping prevented by your loud noise.

It may signify "Your loud noise prevents me from giving up sleeping, still 'I give up sleeping' is true."

Unusual.

2. Lojban sentences for "I don't sleep because of your loud noise."

2-1-1. {ki'u} in the scope of {naku}.

{naku mi sipna ki'u lo nu do cladu}

"I sleep because of your loud noise" is false.

It may signify:

-1. "The reason for my sleeping is not your loud noise," [1] or,

-2. "I don't sleep; if I were sleeping, the reason for my sleeping would be your loud noise."

Both interpretations are unusual.

2-1-2. {to'eki'u} in the scope of {naku}.

{naku mi sipna to'eki'u lo nu do cladu}

"I sleep prevented by your loud noise" is false.

It may signify:

-1. "Something that prevents my sleeping is not your loud noise," [2] or,

-2. "Your loud noise prevents me from sleeping, and 'I sleep' is false."

Both interpretations are reasonable.

2-2-1. {ki'u} out of the scope of {naku}.

{ki'u lo nu do cladu kei naku mi sipna}

Because of your loud noise, "I sleep" is false.

Reasonable.

2-2-2. {to'eki'u} out of the scope of {naku}.

{to'eki'u lo nu do cladu kei naku mi sipna}

Prevented by your loud noise, "I sleep" is false.

It may signify "Your loud noise prevents me from no-sleeping, still 'I don't sleep' is true."

Unusual.

Notes.

[1] The interpretation 2-1-1-1 includes the meaning of {mi sipna ki'unai lo nu do cladu}, but does not say {mi sipna} is true or not.

[2] The interpretation 2-1-2-1 includes the meaning of {mi sipna to'eki'unai lo nu do cladu}, but does not say {mi sipna} is true or not.

Conclusion.

{ki'u} is reasonable in affirmative sentence or out of the scope of negation; it may allow unusual interpretations in the scope of negation.

{to'eki'u} is reasonable in the scope of negation; it may allow unusual interpretations in affirmative sentence or out of the scope of negation.

Supposing my understanding is correct, we should be careful in reforming 2-1-2 {naku X to'eki'u lo nu Y} into the forms with {i to'eki'u bo} and {to'eki'u gi ... gi}: {zo'u} is indispensable for {i to'eki'u bo} in order to let the scope of {naku} span over {to'eki'u}.

Forms corresponding to each other:

naku X to'eki'u lo nu Y

naku zo'u X .i to'eki'u bo Y

naku to'eki'u gi Y gi X

Example:

naku mi sipna to'eki'u lo nu do cladu

.i

naku zo'u mi sipna .i to'eki'u bo do cladu

.i

naku to'eki'u gi do cladu gi mi sipna

re'i

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2015-05-13 10:43 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:

We have agreement on the meanings of compounds of causation sumtcita.

http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Causation_sumtcita#Impact

ri'a == with cause

ri'anai == not with cause (regardless of cause)

to'eri'a == prevented by

to'eri'anai == not prevented by (despite)

Interesting that this page expands -nai to {na'e} where is another page http://mw.lojban.org/papri/move_NAI_to_CAI#NAI_and_tags expands to {na}.

I think these to'e TAG can/should be also explained in terms of the scales of the underlying brivla. What is {to'e krinu}? Of course, this is just a question of translating into natlangs. I dont mean explaining {to'e krinu} with some other Lojban words.

P.S. I noticed that I don't like yet another thread in English (although I know that I always did this myself in past). Can we finally start shutting down English in BPFK threads except when paedagogical explanations for English speakers and/or CLL work are needed?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ilmen]

On 13/05/2015 09:43, guskant wrote:

1-2. {to'eki'u} in affirmative sentence.

{mi radycru lo nu sipna kei to'eki'u lo nu do cladu}

I give up sleeping prevented by your loud noise.

It may signify "Your loud noise prevents me from giving up sleeping, still 'I give up sleeping' is true."

Unusual.

pe'i smuni dunli ja jibni lu lo nu mi radycru lo nu sipna cu se to'e krinu lo nu do cladu li'u

2. Lojban sentences for "I don't sleep because of your loud noise."

2-1-1. {ki'u} in the scope of {naku}.

{naku mi sipna ki'u lo nu do cladu}

"I sleep because of your loud noise" is false.

It may signify:

-1. "The reason for my sleeping is not your loud noise," [1] or,

-2. "I don't sleep; if I were sleeping, the reason for my sleeping would be your loud noise."

Both interpretations are unusual.

pe'i smuni dunli ja jibni lu jitfa fa lo du'u mi sipna ki'u lo nu do cladu li'u .i pe'i naku natfe ge lo du'u da'i ja'a sipna ki'u lo drata be lo nu cladu gi lo du'u na sipna

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o

[Ilmen]

On 13/05/2015 13:12, Ilmen wrote:

2. Lojban sentences for "I don't sleep because of your loud noise."

2-1-1. {ki'u} in the scope of {naku}.

{naku mi sipna ki'u lo nu do cladu}

"I sleep because of your loud noise" is false.

It may signify:

-1. "The reason for my sleeping is not your loud noise," [1] or,

-2. "I don't sleep; if I were sleeping, the reason for my sleeping would be your loud noise."

Both interpretations are unusual.

pe'i smuni dunli ja jibni lu jitfa fa lo du'u mi sipna ki'u lo nu do cladu li'u .i pe'i naku natfe ge lo du'u da'i ja'a sipna ki'u lo drata be lo nu cladu gi lo du'u na sipna

sa'e pe'i naku natfe ba'e ga lo du'u da'i ja'a sipna ki'u lo drata be lo nu cladu gi lo du'u na sipna

[guskant]

Le mercredi 13 mai 2015 07:52:36 UTC, la gleki a écrit :

I think these to'e TAG can/should be also explained in terms of the scales of the underlying brivla. What is {to'e krinu}? Of course, this is just a question of translating into natlangs. I dont mean explaining {to'e krinu} with some other Lojban words.

 

pe'i

lu x_1 to'e krinu x_2 li'u

cu dunli 

lu x_1 fanta x_2 .ije x_1 jicmu ja velcki lo du'u lo natfe be x_2 cu jalge ma kau li'u 

lo ka smuni

.i lu to'e rinka li'u lu to'e nibli li'u mu'anai ji'a zo'u simsa

.i mu'a 

lu x_1 to'e rinka x_2 li'u

cu dunli 

lu x_1 fanta x_2 .ije lo nu x_1 fasnu na kakne lo ka na se jalge lo nu lo natfe be x_2 cu fasnu li'u 

lo ka smuni

Le mercredi 13 mai 2015 11:12:12 UTC, Ilmen a écrit :

On 13/05/2015 09:43, guskant wrote:

1-2. {to'eki'u} in affirmative sentence.

{mi radycru lo nu sipna kei to'eki'u lo nu do cladu}

I give up sleeping prevented by your loud noise.

It may signify "Your loud noise prevents me from giving up sleeping, still 'I give up sleeping' is true."

Unusual.

pe'i smuni dunli ja jibni lu lo nu mi radycru lo nu sipna cu se to'e krinu lo nu do cladu li'u

 

jo'a .i mi xusra lo du'u lo cizra .enai lo fadni cu nibli lo du'u mi radycru lo nu sipna cu se to'e krinu lo nu do cladu

jo'a .i mi xusra genai lo du'u natfe lo se go'i gi lo du'u ga lo mukti be lo nu pilno zo ki'u tedi'o lo 2-1-1 mai bridi gi lo nibli be ri cu cizra

[Pierre Abbat]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 00:43:17 guskant wrote:
> 2-1-1. {ki'u} in the scope of {naku}.
> {naku mi sipna ki'u lo nu do cladu}
> "I sleep because of your loud noise" is false.
> It may signify:
> -1. "The reason for my sleeping is not your loud noise," [1] or,
> -2. "I don't sleep; if I were sleeping, the reason for my sleeping would be
> your loud noise."
> Both interpretations are unusual.

#1 makes more sense, but the sentence doesn't imply that I sleep or that I
don't sleep.

> 2-1-2. {to'eki'u} in the scope of {naku}.
> {naku mi sipna to'eki'u lo nu do cladu}
> "I sleep prevented by your loud noise" is false.
> It may signify:
> -1. "Something that prevents my sleeping is not your loud noise," [2] or,
> -2. "Your loud noise prevents me from sleeping, and 'I sleep' is false."
> Both interpretations are reasonable.

#1 is {ki'u na'ebo lo nu do cladu kei naku mi sipna}. #2 is {ki'u lo nu do
cladu kei naku mi sipna}.

Pierre
--
La sal en el mar es más que en la sangre.
Le sel dans la mer est plus que dans le sang.

[guskant]

mo'u finti lo papri no'u la'o zoi

http://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_Complement_to_causation_sumtcita

zoi

.i da da'i ri ko pinka 

.i ji'a .au ba'a mi'o zukte lo nu cmicu'a fi lo jei lo papri cu xamgu

.i caku ta'ima kakne lo nu go'i