From LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:52:03 2010 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 12 May 1993 16:14:20 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4182; Wed, 12 May 93 16:13:38 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 0923; Wed, 12 May 93 16:01:39 EDT Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 16:00:36 EDT Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: TECH: "only and "mi'u" X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Erik Rauch X-From-Space-Date: Wed May 12 12:00:36 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Message-ID: John Cowan writes in response to me: >> Just to ask a stupid question - if the "only" cmavo means "without parallel", >> what do we have the negation of the "parallel" discursive meaning, and would >> it better be applied in this way. > >"parallel" is probably a bad word. I assume what you are referring to >is {mi'u}, discursive ditto, which has no defined opposite. That is the word I had in mind (having finally checked). So, could mi'unai be reasonably interpreted (or stretched) as "only, exclusively". If so, we save ourselves a cmavo. The only other direction I can go in my head as an "opposite" to mi'u, leads to something of a flavor similar to "ku'i", but more restricted in scope. lojbab