Subject: Re: [lojban] not only

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 22:07:04 -0400 (EDT)

[email-masked] scripsit:

> But of course, the first case being non-unique is not just a discourse 
> function but a logical and factual one and so belongs in the the 
> truth-functional realms

It *can* belong there. But in this construction I judge we are dealing
with a rhetorical emphasis, quite unlike "Not only farmers are fishers." = 
"Some non-farmers are fishers", where its function is clearly logical.

> (by the way, the book say {po'o} must come after what 
> it modifies:13.12).

Attitudinals attached to structuring words like "gi'e" implicitly
modify the entire phrase controlled by the "gi'e", just as
"le .ui broda brode brodo" applies the ".ui" to the whole
sumti, whereas "le broda brode brodo .ui" would apply ".ui" only
to "brodo".

> (the book also says that "only" is hard to express in predicate 
> form : "confuses the hell out of beginners" is the correct characterization).

With me as the chief beginner.

-- 
John Cowan [email-masked]
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
--Douglas Hofstadter