Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0ptKQF-00006TC; Tue, 19 Apr 94 21:21 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0984; Tue, 19 Apr 94 21:21:38 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0982; Tue, 19 Apr 1994 21:21:37 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2926; Tue, 19 Apr 1994 20:20:09 +0200 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 18:17:27 GMT Reply-To: Matthew Faupel Sender: Lojban list From: Matthew Faupel Subject: Re: Once again... X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: message from Jorge Llambias on Tue, 19 Apr 1994 12:21:25 EDT Content-Length: 1323 Lines: 37 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