# BPFK Section: Complement to causation sumtcita

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

to'e followed by ki'u, mu'i, ni'i, ri'a or seja'e constitute useful cmavo compounds. Here are the complementary explanations with examples.

## Definition of causation sumtcita with to'e and/or nai

Causation sumtcita with to'e and/or nai are defined along the corresponding causation gismu as follows. The table shows only the case of ki'u-krinu, but the same correspondence is defined for mu'i-mukti, ni'i-nibli, ri'a-rinka, and seja'e-se jalge.

ki'u
di'e panra simxu Corresponding English sentence
1. ki'u lo nu broda ku brode
2. fi'o krinu lo nu broda ku brode
3. lo nu broda ku krinu lo nu brode ku
Event of broda is reason for event of brode (1,2,3).
For the reason that broda, brode is true (1,2).

Examples:

For the reason of your loud noise, I give up sleeping.
lo nu do cladu ku krinu lo nu mi radycru lo nu sipna
Your loud noise is reason for my giving up sleeping.

ki'u or any causation sumtcita clause in the scope of naku-negation may bring little information. See the section "Causation sumtcita in the scope of naku-negation" for detail.

ki'unai
di'e panra simxu Corresponding English sentence
1. ki'unai lo nu broda ku brode
2. fi'o na'e krinu lo nu broda ku brode
3. lo nu broda ku na'e krinu lo nu brode ku
Event of broda is not reason for event of brode (1,2,3).
Regardless of event of broda, brode is true (1,2).

Examples:

Regardless of your loud noise, I give up sleeping.
lo nu do cladu ku na'e krinu lo nu mi radycru lo nu sipna
Your loud noise is not reason for my giving up sleeping.
to'eki'u
di'e panra simxu Corresponding English sentence
1. to'eki'u lo nu broda ku brode
2. fi'o to'e krinu lo nu broda ku brode
3. lo nu broda ku to'e krinu lo nu brode ku
4. lo nu broda ku krinu lo nu na brode ku
Event of broda is reason for event of not brode (1,2,3,4).
Event of broda prevents event of brode (1,2,3,4), and brode is true (1,2).

Statements 1 and 2 bring unusual meaning, because event of brode is prevented by event of broda although brode is true. For example,

prevented by your loud noise, I give up sleeping.
Your loud noise prevents my giving up sleeping, still I give up sleeping.
to'eki'u lo nu do cladu ku mi na sipna
prevented by your loud noise, I don't sleep.
Your loud noise prevents my non-sleeping, still I don't sleep.

Both statements bring unusual meaning. They seem apparently natural, but pay attention to the scope of to'eki'u-sumtcita clause[1]: it spans over the whole statement, and the target of prevention is "my giving up sleeping" and "my non-sleeping" respectively.

See the section "to'e with causation sumtcita in affirmative bridi" for the related discussion.

Reasonable examples:

naku mi sipna to'eki'u lo nu do cladu
"I sleep prevented by your loud noise" is false.

It may be interpreted as "I don't sleep" or "My sleeping is not prevented by your loud noise." See the section to'e with causation sumtcita in the scope of naku-negation for the related discussion.

lo nu do cladu ku krinu lo nu mi na sipna
Your loud noise is reason for my non-sleeping.
Your loud noise prevents my sleeping.
to'eki'unai
di'e panra simxu Corresponding English sentence
1. to'eki'unai lo nu broda ku brode
2. fi'o na'e to'e krinu lo nu broda ku brode
3. lo nu broda ku na'e to'e krinu lo nu brode ku
4. lo nu broda ku na'e krinu lo nu na brode ku
Event of broda is not reason for event of not brode (1,2,3,4).
Event of broda does not prevent event of brode (1,2,3,4), and brode is true (1,2).
Despite event of broda, brode is true (1,2).

Examples:

to'eki'unai lo nu do cladu ku mi sipna
Despite your loud noise, I sleep.
lo nu do cladu ku na'e krinu lo nu mi na sipna
Your loud noise is not reason for my non-sleeping.
Your loud noise does not prevent my sleeping.

## Negation of bridi including causation sumtcita

### to'e with causation sumtcita in affirmative bridi

Because "to'e+causation sumtcita" defined above corresponds to bridi negation of brode, using it in bridi of affirmative brode may bring unusual meaning.

1. brode to'eki'u lo nu broda
2. brode .i to'eki'u bo broda
3. to'eki'u gi broda gi brode

For the correspondence between these forms, see the section below. Statements 1 and 2 mean

event of broda prevents event of brode, still brode is true.

If brode is true, then event of brode is not prevented by event of broda!

Statement 3 is rather reasonable, because it does not say whether brode is true or not.

### to'e with causation sumtcita in the scope of naku-negation

Such a paradox does not occur when "to'e+causation sumtcita" appears in the scope of naku-negation.

1. naku brode to'eki'u lo nu broda
2. naku zo'u brode .i to'eki'u bo broda
3. naku to'eki'u gi broda gi brode

For the correspondence between these forms, see the section below. Statements 1 and 2 may mean:

1. brode is false, or
2. "Event of broda prevents event of brode" is false.

Both interpretations are reasonable: [α and not β], [α and β], [not α but β], though the statements give no further information. It is unclear whether broda is true or not, brode is true or not, the causation is true or not.

If the speaker intended to mean [α and not β],

ki'u lo nu broda ku naku brode

would be more precise. Note that the ki'u clause is out of the scope of naku[1].

If the speaker intended to mean β, Statement 3 were suitable because it could not mean [not β]. Or,

naku lo nu broda ku krinu lo nu na brode

would be also precise. If the speaker intended to mean further that event of broda and the event of brode have any non-krinu relation to each other, then

lo nu broda ku na'e krinu lo nu na brode

would be more precise. If the speaker intended to mean further that brode is true,

brode to'eki'unai lo nu broda
Despite event of broda, brode is true.

would be more precise. Or if the speaker rather intended to mean that brode is false,

ki'unai lo nu broda ku naku brode
Regardless of event of broda, brode is false.

would be more precise.

### Causation sumtcita in the scope of naku-negation

Similarly, causation sumtcita without to'e in the scope of naku-negation brings little information.

1. naku brode ki'u lo nu broda
2. naku zo'u brode .i ki'u bo broda
3. naku ki'u gi broda gi brode

For the correspondence between these forms, see the section below. Statements 1 and 2 may mean:

1. brode is false, or
2. "Event of broda is reason for event of brode" is false.

Both interpretations are possible: [α and not β], [α and β], [not α but β], though the statements give no further information. It is unclear whether broda is true or not, brode is true or not, the causation is true or not.

If the speaker intended to mean [α and not β], that is to say the causation is true, but brode is false, then naturally broda also should be false. In this case,

ki'u lo nu na broda ku naku brode

would be more precise. Note that the ki'u clause is out of the scope of naku[1].

If the speaker intended to mean β, Statement 3 were suitable because it could not mean [not β]. Or,

naku lo nu broda ku krinu lo nu brode

would be also precise.

## General note on negation of statements including sumtcita

According to CLL10.23, the following statements correspond to each other:

X BAI lo nu Y
X .i BAI bo Y
BAI gi Y gi X

Y PU lo nu X
X .i PU bo Y
PU gi X gi Y

(PU here means any tense/spatial sumtcita.)

Negation of these statements should be:

naku X BAI lo nu Y
naku zo'u X .i BAI bo Y
naku BAI gi Y gi X

naku Y PU lo nu X
naku zo'u X .i PU bo Y
naku PU gi X gi Y

Note that zo'u is required for the form of [.i BAI bo/.i PU bo] in order to make naku span over the whole statement.

## References

1. The scope in this discussion is the most simple: the preceding [sumtcita/selbri tcita/na(ku)/quantifiers/logical connectives] span over the following ones. See the pages on scope of na, scope of tenses and NA and scope of selbri tcita for further discussions on the scope.