From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Wed Apr 21 22:40:19 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 21 Apr 1993 17:32:02 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6602; Wed, 21 Apr 93 17:31:42 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1866; Wed, 21 Apr 93 17:31:22 EST Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 21:40:19 +0100 Reply-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK Sender: Lojban list From: Mr Andrew Rosta Subject: addendum Re: TECH: word "only" X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET, jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 01 Apr 93 09:08:23 PST.) <9304011737.AA111016@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> Status: OR Message-ID: <44GQY1UbG_E.A.WK.w00kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> I said: > jimc: > > I very much agree. The word "only" was one of the first that I broke my > > teeth on. Here is a short list of meanings, supplementing what Colin > > wrote: > > > > (1) The only way is love There is exactly one X which is > > a tadji (way), AND X is love > > (2) I ate only two cookies I ate two cookies, AND two is less > > than the expected number for this > > situation > > (3) I only ate two cookies I ate two cookies, AND that event > > is less than what would normally > > justify the criticism or punishment > > that you are putting me through > > I reckon 1, 2 & 3 (on one reading of 3) are the same. 2 is: there are > exactly two cookies eaten by me (in this particular event of eating). > 3 is: there is exactly one eating (at this particular implicit time) > such that the eater is me and the eatee is two cookies. I am wrong about 3. Rather, it is: there is some event whose x1 is me and whose x2 is two cookies and all such events are eatings. [Or maybe not.] --- And.