From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Apr 19 12:16:16 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 19 Apr 2001 19:16:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 20359 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2001 19:16:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Apr 2001 19:16:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ej.egroups.com) (10.1.10.49) by mta1 with SMTP; 19 Apr 2001 19:16:15 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.2.225] by ej.egroups.com with NNFMP; 19 Apr 2001 19:16:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 19:16:00 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: "not only" Message-ID: <9bndhg+t4ud@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 1998 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "A.W.T." --- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote: > If there is some doubt about this, consider the following. For humans i= =3D=0D t is=20 > universally true that only females are pregnant. So, in particular, it i= =3D=0D s=20 > true that only female inhabitants of the Carmel of Sts Tereesa and Theres= =3D=0D e=20 > are pregnant. But, even though there are female (and only female)=20 > inhabitants, it does not follow that any of them are pregnant. > Similarly, only female inhabitants of Gethsemani Abbey are pregnant. It = =3D=0D does=20 > not follow from this that any of these men is pregnant, indeed, from the = =3D=0D fact=20 > that they are all men it follows that none of them is pregnant. Of cours= =3D=0D e,=20 > you could say that it is not true of these groups that only female member= =3D=0D s=20 > are pregnant, but that entails that they are not human, contrary to all t= =3D=0D he=20 > available evidence. I don't at all accept your tricky "*are* (pregnant)", which is false - henc= =3D=0D e all your further statements deducted. {lo'e fetsi cu ka'e pazvau} -> true {lo'e fetsi po'onai cu ka'e pazvau} -> true {lo'e fetsi noi se zdani la'o gy The Carmel of Sts Tereesa and Therese gy c= =3D=0D u ka'e pazvau} -> true (I think, this doesn't claim that there are females there at all nor that t= =3D=0D hey're pregnant) {lo'e fetsi noi se zdani la cys. ge'u po'onai cu ka'e pazvau} -> ????? (is only the typical female *living in the Carmel* innately capable to be p= =3D=0D regnant?! Yet, using the {noi} here instead of {poi}=20 maybe could save here - not too sure though.) > Bite the bullet and get on with it. Ich bei=DFe lieber in den sauren Apfel ;-) co'o mi'e .aulun. P.S. In Chinese, the word for "only" is different from that of "not only" = =3D=0D (bu *jin* shi xiaohai ... Not only the kids ... - *zhi3* shi=20 xiaohai... Only the kids...) But this only (?) depends from usage conventio= =3D=0D n. (Although the different words e.g. zhi3, dan4, jin3,4=20 are differently flavoured in shades of meaning.) I'm sure that our member Z= =3D=0D himin can give more competent advice.