From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Sep 24 12:37:57 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_0_2); 24 Sep 2000 19:37:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 15387 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2000 19:37:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Sep 2000 19:37:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.66) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Sep 2000 19:37:53 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 12:37:53 -0700 Received: from 200.42.118.84 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:37:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.118.84] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] The scale of ji'a Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 19:37:53 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2000 19:37:53.0609 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE796B90:01C0265E] From: "Jorge Llambias" la adam cusku di'e >(I suppose there could be a >question as to whether "ji'a" applies more to the thing least likely to >be included or the thing most likely to be included, if it applies to >both, but this way seems consistent and useful.) I think the stronger case is for {ji'acai} to be "even". A simple {ji'a} says that there are other cases as well as the one discussed. "Even" not only says that there are other cases, but the implication is that all other more likely cases apply, in that sense it is more intense than {ji'a}. "At least" is a much weaker {ji'a}, and in fact it may not be a {ji'a} at all. "At least X" leaves open the possibility that "only X", and thus {ji'a} would not apply. It says "X and perhaps some others", so it is a weak {ji'a}. Also, there is the Russian word for "even" that looks like an augmentative "also". I didn't even know about that word when I proposed {ji'acai}, but it is very satisfying to find something like it in a natlang. >In addition, I remember reading in some archive that "ji'anai" was >proposed for "except", i.e. it marks something that is not included, >but it was objected to by some because it distorts the logical >structure. Would it work in sentences with no connectives, the way {po'o} and {ji'a} work? With regards to this it would have been really useful if {ga'o} and {ke'i} were in selmaho UI instead of their own limited and not much used selmaho. Then we could use {ji'ake'i} for "all except". co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.