Re: ke'u[nai], va'i[nai]

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

Well, time to eat crow on "ke'u" and "va'i".

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> >From the attitudinals paper:
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         va'i    in the same words               in other words [valsi]
>         ta'u    expanding a tanru               making a tanru  [tanru]
> 
> The discursives "va'i" and "ta'u" operate at the level of words, rather than
> discourse proper, or if you like, they deal with how things are said.
> An alternative English expression for "va'i" is "repeating"; for "va'inai",
> "rephrasing".  Also compare "va'i" with "ke'u", discussed below.
> 
> - - -
> 
> The cmavo "ke'u" does at the level of ideas what the cmavo "va'i", discussed
> above, does at the level of words, although the scales are oppositely
> aligned.  Thus "ke'u" indicates repetition of ideas and "va'inai" repetition
> of words; "ke'unai" indicates new ideas, "va'i" new words.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> First, there is a contradiction as to what va'i means, at least in the copy
> I have, which I believe is the latest.
> 
> Now, supposing that va'i means "in other words":

It does, and I don't know where I got the impression that it didn't.
I went back to the original version of this paper, published with JL12, and
there is no question that "va'i" means "in other words" and "va'inai" means
"in the same words".  The cmavo list also backs this up.

> (Which seems the only reasonable thing, since I can't think of any reason
> to say {va'inai}, "in the same words", unless you want to be extremely
> emphatic. In English, "repeating" usually does not mean that you're
> literally going to repeat the words you just said (unless it's a single
> word: "I want three, repeat, three boxes of supplies" but doing that in
> Lojban, if you're talking to the parser, will result in you getting
> 33 boxes, so repetition at the level of words is not possible.))

Not so directly, no.  But "ci (tova'inai ci toi)" will work.  The "va'inai"
then signals that the repetition is intentional and not some kind of error.

> I don't think the two scales are really oppositely aligned.

They aren't.

> This "at the
> level of words" vs "at the level of ideas" doesn't make much sense to me.
> Both {va'i} and {ke'u} seem to mean that you are repeating the idea and
> changing the words.

Yes, but they differ in emphasis.  "ke'u" emphasizes the repetition of ideas;
"va'i" emphasizes the non-repetition of words.

> {va'i} doesn't mean simply that you are changing words,
> like you're changing ideas with {ke'unai}. The main point of {va'i},
> just like of {ke'u}, is that you are repeating the idea. If it simply
> indicated "new words", then perhaps we should use it at the beginning of
> every sentence.

Obviously not.

> So, I'm for leaving both {va'i} and {ke'u} as they are,

It shall be done, and I will correct the paper accordingly.

> and I don't think
> they're reversed, and I don't think {va'i} is much use anyway, since {ke'u}
> means practically the same thing, and {va'inai} doesn't seem very useful.

They have their uses, as shown above.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.