Return-Path: Return-Path: From: cbmvax!uunet!think.com!gls Date: Tue, 14 Jan 92 15:33:29 EST Message-Id: <9201142033.AA01573@strident.think.com> To: cowan@snark.thyrsus.com Cc: gls@think.com In-Reply-To: John Cowan's message of Mon, 13 Jan 1992 17:09:26 EST <9201132326.AA04454@Early-Bird.Think.COM> Subject: The dreaded word "only" Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Jan 15 11:57:03 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!think.com!gls Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1992 17:09:26 EST From: John Cowan X-To: Lojban List ... la djordj. du ro da poi darxi le tamni fo le nazbi George is-identical-to all those who hit the cousin on the nose. Only George hit his cousin on his nose. (Note that English is over-specific by Lojban standards in saying "his cousin". and "his nose". Likewise, English idiomatically says "He put his hands in his pockets": to speakers of other languages, the question naturally arises "Whose pockets would he put his hands in?", and even more peculiar, "Whose hands would he put in his pockets?".) On the contrary, English is very much in the spirit of Lojban here; the default is that the possible sets of hands are unconstrained, rather than the default being an implicit assumption that is rooted more in physiology and social convention than in linguistics. If I were to say, "He put hands in pockets", it is entirely appropriate that your immediate reaction be to ask "Whose hands? Which pockets?" rather than to assume that I mean his hands and his pockets; for in the presence of defaulting, there is no simple way to say that I don't want say whose hands or pockets! Then again, consider the not entirely awkward English phraseology: "He stood outside the soda shoppe, hands in pockets." Which way do you want it? --Guy Steele