Message-Id: <199404191834.AA14537@nfs1.digex.net>
Reply-To: Matthew Faupel <matthew@viper.uk.tele.nokia.fi>
Date: Tue Apr 19 14:34:57 1994
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Matthew Faupel <matthew@viper.uk.tele.nokia.fi>
Subject:      Re: Once again...
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
In-Reply-To:  message from Jorge Llambias on Tue, 19 Apr 1994 12:21:25 EDT
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Apr 19 14:34:57 1994
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU

JL: la i,n di'e cusku sera'a le selti'i be la veion

IA: .i ju'o cumki fa lenu .a'icu'i pilno zo ji'a mu'u lu pa-ji'a-roi li'u

JL: ua ie
JL: i pe'i drani danfu
JL: i lu mi paji'aroi tcidu li'u
JL: i mi caca'o jinvi le du'u zo re'u selplixau

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

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

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.

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

Cheers,


Matthew