Subject: Re: Tashunkekokipapi - Man-afraid-of his-horses

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 16:11:23 PDT

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.

>/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".

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.

>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.

co'o mi'e xorxes

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com