From pycyn@aol.com Wed Apr 18 07:09:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 18 Apr 2001 14:09:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 85680 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2001 14:09:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 18 Apr 2001 14:09:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m01.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.4) by mta3 with SMTP; 18 Apr 2001 14:09:51 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id r.9d.144b2b5c (4254) for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:09:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9d.144b2b5c.280efa2b@aol.com> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:09:47 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9d.144b2b5c.280efa2b_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_9d.144b2b5c.280efa2b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/17/2001 11:58:52 PM Central Daylight Time, cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes: > 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! The original was Which *may* be of the sort you mentioned, but looks -- and was taken -- to be literally about "only." Notice the different structures used, the "only" modifies content words, not merely structural ones. --part1_9d.144b2b5c.280efa2b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/17/2001 11:58:52 PM Central Daylight Time,
cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes:

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!

The original was
<rats not only eat cheese, butalso eat meat
lo'e ratcu cu citka lo cirlanalpavmei (gi'eji'a lo rectu) ???
lo'e ratcu cu citka lo cirlapo'onai (.iku'i go'i lo rectu si'a/mi'u)???

Not only rats are eatingmeat, but also cats do.
lo'e ratcu nalpavmei cu citkalo rectu (.iku'i lo'e mlatu si'a/mi'a cu go'i) -
.i mi senpi le du'u di'u ka'ese smuni le se skudji be mi
lo'e ratcu po'enai cu citkalo rectu (.iku'i lo'e mlatu si'a/mi'u cu go'i) ???>

Which *may* be of the sort you mentioned, but looks -- and was taken -- to be
literally about "only." Notice the different structures used, the "only"
modifies content words, not merely structural ones.
--part1_9d.144b2b5c.280efa2b_boundary--