Message-Id: <m0ptMHR-00006TC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 19 Apr 1994 16:18:13 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Once again...
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 3183
Lines: 97

la matius cusku di'e

> A reply to Lojban in English I'm afraid because I'm short of time and
> linguistic capability :-(

Ok, but only for this once... :)

> I'm not sure that the given use of {ji'a} is what we want.

Now I'm not sure either, but I think it might be all right, after all.

> {ji'a} is a
> meta-linguistic comment to indicate that the thing to which it is attached
> (by the normal Lojbanic methods) is an additional piece of information over
> and above that already provided by the speaker, which adds weight to what
> they have already said.

It doesn't have to be information provided by the speaker, it could be from
some other source, but that's beside the point.

Let's look at an example:

        mi klama le zarci

(isn't this an imaginative example?)

We can add {ji'a} in several places:

        ji'a mi klama le zarci

means what you say: in addition to whatever piece of information was given
before, I now say that I go to the market, adding weight to it. But,

        mi ji'a klama le zarci

I can only interpret as "I, too, go to the market", which is not adding
weight to any previous assertion. The same with

        mi klama le zarci ku ji'a

which I take to mean "I go also to the market (as well as to other places)."
And

        mi klama ji'a le zarci

presumably means that before, I said I was doing something else to the market
besides going to it.

>  I don't think that it should be press-ganged into
> use as the somewhat different meaning of "additionally" that we're after
> here (an additional number to the already extant number).

I think {ji'a} already has a slightly different meaning when applied to
a whole bridi from the one it has when applied to a single word, unless
I've completely missed its meaning, and have been using it quite wrongly.

> My best attempt at interpretation of the above use of {ji'a} is that it is
> emphasising the fact the whatever was done was only done once, e.g.:
>
> #1: .i xu do morji le selylisri la'o zy. War and Peace zy.
> #2: .i nago'i  .i mi ra puzu tcidu  .i paji'aroi go'i
>
> which I would interpret as:
>
> #1: Do you remember the plot of "War and Peace"?
> #2: No.  I read it a long time ago... and I only read it the once.

For that meaning, why not just say {i ji'a paroi go'i}?

Or, for emphasis {i ji'a ba'e paroi go'i}.

> Maybe I'm wrong... Shoot me down in flames if I am :-)

I think you do have a point, but I'm not clear on what are the implications.

Another problem that I now see with {mi paji'aroi tcidu} is that the other
presumed times of reading have to fall outside the (unspecified) interval.
Because of the way numbers work in lojban, if it's true with 1 then it's not
true with 2. (cf. goat's legs).

Thus, something like

        mi tcidu paji'aroi le cabdei
        I read one [additional] time today

would mean (if {ji'a} is acceptable for this job) that my previous reading
was not done today. (And that I won't be reading again today, either.)

Whereas
        *mi tcidu rere'u le cabdei
        I read for the second time today

if {re'u} was accepted, would mean that the first time also occured today,
and there could possibly be other times.


Jorge