From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Mon Jul 10 13:11:16 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29986 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2000 20:11:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 10 Jul 2000 20:11:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ck.egroups.com) (10.1.2.83) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Jul 2000 20:11:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.98] by ck.egroups.com with NNFMP; 10 Jul 2000 20:11:14 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:11:13 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: Tashunkekokipapi - Man-afraid-of his-horses Message-ID: <8kdal1+u1gp@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <20000709231123.99448.qmail@hotmail.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2673 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 3544 --- In lojban@egroups.com, "Jorge Llambias" wrote: > la aulun cusku di'e > >So, I could imagine that an attitudinal also is allowed being > >part of a name (e.g. expressing a parents joyful surprise "Oh, > >it's a boy!"). > > Where's the cmene there? Even if you mean something like > {doi nanla ui}, the attitudinal is attached to the name, > not part of the name. If it were a part of the name it > would not show any joy the speaker might feel. Indeed the > speaker could feel sadness with respect to someone whose > name contained the attitudinal {ui}. This is uncharted > territory, but I doubt that we want to let attitudinals > be part of names. That's another question - I'd like it :) > > >/ji'a/ (additionally) IMHO doesn't give the whole sense of "even". > > I agree, it is only part of the sense. That's why I used > {ji'acai}. It is not just one more thing, but the last and > least likely one, and with {cai} I try to point to this > extremeness. > > >It > >even doesn't hit the very sense of "also". > > Well, it means "also", "too", "as well" by definition. > The connection with {jmina} is merely mnemonic. You don't > have to think of it as specially restricted to the English > word "additionally", either. > > >"also" gives the idea of > >an action/event/status etc. at least one time 'paralleled' in a > >similar/equal manner (but without any aspect of expectation or > >surprise like in "additionally" with the idea of a surplus). > > If you see that sense in "also" maybe you can use {si'a} > for it. To me it is pure {ji'a}. > > >But > >"even" always has the connotation of surprise (.ue ?), something > >beyond expectation or unusual (and - as you already pointed out > >earlier - maybe something at the boundaries of contextual > >semantics). > > "Even" does point to a contrast, but it is not surprise. You > can say things like "he is so fearsome that it is not surprising > that even his horse brings fear to his enemies". This example is quite convincing. > It is as if you are pointing to a long string of things that > bring fear to his enemies: his person, and also his presence, > and also his strength, and also his weapons, and finally even > his horse. By saying "even his horse" you are including all > the other things that are more likely than his horse to bring > fear to his enemies. Accepted! > >BTW, "mi viska la nanmu poi le xirma po ke'a..." shouldn't I better > >write: "mi viska la nanmu poi le xirma po ke'axire..." ??? > > No, why? Isn't {ke'axire} used for a second embedded clause? > Here you have only one. I was mislead by the /le xirma po.../ phrase co'o mi'e .aulun.