Message-Id: <199709261548.KAA26084@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Don Wiggins Date: Fri Sep 26 10:48:16 1997 Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: po'o entails ja'a? X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: John Cowan X-Mozilla-Status: 0005 Content-Length: 1085 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Sep 26 10:48:16 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU la djan. di'e cusku > > I express doubts because although I've not checked in the Book > > whether John invented some proper grammar for po`o, I remember > > when it was introduced amid a great fog of illogicality and > > confusion about "only" - the debate was "solved" by introducing > > a word in UI (i.e. with pretty much vague semantics) glossed > > as "only". > It means "There is no parallel example which differs only > in the object to which po'o is attached." The definition you have given does not indicate that the example >must< be true. In English, whenever we use "only" it has this additional condition. I only read newspapers. Means: 1. I read newspapers. 2. There is no other action that I do to newspapers. From your definition I may or may not read newspapers. Semi-formal symbolic logic definitions would help to clarify things. > Does > .ei mi na klama > mean that I am not obliged to come, or that I am obliged not > to come, or what? "I am obliged to not come". ".einai mi klama" is "I am not obliged to come". ni'oco'omi'e dn.