[lojban-beginners] Re: ke'a

["Michael Turniansky" <mturniansky@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/22/08, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>>  Well, I think we'll have to disagree on this point.  To me "poi
>> po'o" means "restricted solely to".
>
> OK, but that is not what {po'o} normally does. The usual
> function of {po'o} is to indicate that the thing it marks is
> the only one that applies.
>
   But it is doing that.  Like all discursives, when what it's marking
is a (for lack of a better word) grouping cmavo, its scope is the
entire group contained within that cmavo:

le xunre tamca po'o -> the red tomato (only) (i.e. out of the red
things, the only tomato)
le xunre po'o tamca -> the only /red/ tomato  (i.e out of all the
tomatos, the only one that's red)
le po'o xunre tamca -> the only red-tomato (i.e. the only thing here
which is a red tomato)

Similarly

 lo nanmu poi ke'a vecnu lo karce poi po'o mi viska ke'a ->
 lo nanmu poi ke'a vecnu lo karce poi (mi viska ke'a) po'o ->
A man who sold  cars, which were (the ones I saw) only

>> Without the po'o there, we
>> already are restricting the set ("the cars that were seen by me" as
>> opposed to using noi, which would not restrict it), but adding the
>> po'o at this point inthe utterance adds exclusivity as well.
>
> Without {po'o} we could restrict it further. For example:
> {lo karce poi mi viska ke'a zi'e poi do ponse ke'a}.
> With {poi po'o} (as I understand it) that would not make sense.

  I'm not sure I understand the last  sentence?

> I could say: {lo karce poi po'onai mi viska ke'a zi'e poi ji'a
> do ponse ke'a}: "the cars not only that I see but also that
> you own".
>
    I would translate that sentence the same way, but not sure you and
I would see the same meaning?  To me it would include cars that you
own but I do not see.

                 --gejyspa