Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN>
Message-Id: <9110021943.AA21403@relay1.UU.NET>
Date: Wed Oct  2 21:10:56 1991
Reply-To: "61510::GILSON" <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!gilson!61510.decnet>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
From: "61510::GILSON" <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!gilson!61510.decnet>
Subject:      Meaning of "only"
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>, Ken Taylor <taylor@gca.com>,
        List Reader <ghsvax!hal>
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct  2 21:10:56 1991
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN

Richard Kennaway writes:

>After posting one message about "only", I read And Rosta's example of a
>quite different meaning for the word, viz.

>>       Only plants reproduce asexually
>>is equivalent to:
>>       All reproduction such that it is asexual is undergone by plants.
>>I haven't worked through whether this is watertight, & I haven't written
>>any sort of rule for what _only_ means, but one can see how one might
>>proceed towards formulating the rule.

I don't think this is really a different meaning. It looks a little different
because the "only" phrase is the subject, but if we look at Richard's earlier
analysis, which said:

>"Only" seems to me to be a three-place predicate masquerading as a
>two-place one.  "X is only Y" means "X is Y and, perhaps contrary to
>expectation, is not Z", where Z is left unstated.

and put
                X = asexually reproducing species,
                Y = plants, and
                Z = (presumably) animals,

I see no difference here.

                                               Bruce