Re: RE:not only

["A.W.T." <Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de>]

--- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote:
> Someplace back in the archives, whether for the net or various face-to-fa=
ces, 
> is the history of {po'o} as a crutch.  First semester logic students have=
 
> bucked at "Only Ss are Ps" as "All Ps are Ss" since at least the third 
> century bce (a textbook by Theophrastus assumes the student has this prob=
lem) 
> and fans of "the logical language" have been no more tractable.  So, to s=
ave 
> them from having to think about what they were committed to (while still =

> keeping that commitment tucked away in the deep semantics) we gave them 
> {po'o} with the grammar of UI, so that they wouldn't even have toi strugg=
le 
> with the differences among the various places "only" (solus, monos,...) 
> turned up, but could keep their SAE habits intact (aulun: what does Chine=
se 
> do for these cases?...

Oh, the Chinese are doing it the pretty common and old-fashioned way: ¤£¦ý =
... ¦Ó¥B; ¤£¶È... ¦Ó¥B (bu2 dan4/
jin3 ... er2 qie3 - bu dann/jiin ... erl chyee) which is "not only ... and/=
but moreover" almost like in Lojban 
{gi'epo'onai lo'e ratcu giji'a lo'e mlatu cu citka lo rectu}!
for example: ¤£¶È¬O¤p«Ä¦Ó¥B¤j¤H¤]¸òªÌ¤@°_ª± (bu jin shi xiaohai erqie da re=
n ye genzhe yiqi wan): Not only 
the kids but also the grown-ups/adults shared in playing.

BTW, shouldn't the lojban construction rather use {gi'enapo'o...} if the {l=
o'e ratcu} is referred to?

co'o mi'e .aulun.