Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:58:47 -0400 (EDT)

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