Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:49:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199710150249.VAA16525@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Sender: Lojban list From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS Subject: Re: Not just. To: lojban X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 864 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Oct 14 21:49:32 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU cu'u la dn >How does one say "not just X". This is another concept similar to 'only', but > indicates that the predication holds >for X and that there is at least one other X' that is also true. One way is {ji'a}: la djan ji'a cu pinxe le ckafi Also John drinks coffee. That implies that someone else does. >And just to complete the quadruple, there is "not even X" that is like 'non-', > but X is false and all other X' are also >false. There was a discussion about "even" here some time ago. I don't remember we came up with anything satisfactory. I have used {ji'a} every time I wanted to say "even", but obviously {ji'a} lacks something (and it is not {ue}). As for "not even X", good question! I can't think of anything for the moment, {ji'anai} doesn't seem strong enough. Anyone else has any ideas? co'o mi'e xorxes