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

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

>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":

(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.))

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

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

Jorge