From cowan@ccil.org Tue Apr 17 21:58:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 04:58:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 62574 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 04:58:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 04:58:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 04:58:35 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 14pk3D-00058s-00; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:58:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only In-Reply-To: <94.12dc8ba7.280e674f@aol.com> from "pycyn@aol.com" at "Apr 17, 2001 11:43:11 pm" To: pycyn@aol.com Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan pycyn@aol.com scripsit: > Everyone else seems to be taking it as a factual, not merely a rhetorical > claim; what is your basis for the different view -- other than the use of > {po'o} in the translations? > Not that I am clear on what the "rhetorical use" of "only" is -- beyond > restricting the universe of discourse. Not of "only", but of "not only...but also", which AFAIK has the same denotation as "both...and", but implies that the first arm is not surprising but the second arm is. If there were a discourse cmavo for "obviously...not obviously", say "xo'i", I would translate "not only... but also" as "gi'exo'i...gixo'inai". I do not think there is any genuine negation of uniqueness here. Not only are you a fool, you are a scoundrel! does not mean that your foolishness is non-unique; it means that your foolishness is *obvious*, but I am adding something else (ji'a) that is not obvious. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter