Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:not only

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:33:28 -0400

At 11:00 PM 04/18/2001 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>In a message dated 4/18/2001 8:05:17 PM Central Daylight Time,
>[email-masked] writes:
>I think it is clear that I don't understand what {po'o} means, other than
>that it has nothing to do with English "only".

It did at one time %^)

>Then {po'o} affects truth value

I believe it does, and always has.

> and should not be a discursive -- and should
>probably be replaced by the appropriate form noted earlier, under general
>lojbanic principles.

As originally proposed, we were looking for a way to express "only", and 
Nick, I believe it was came up with a rather longwinded logical form for 
one kind of "only", which po'o was to be an abbreviation of (it may have 
been the formalization of "[sumti] and no other", but someone looking many 
years back in the list archives can surely find the original 
discussion). Thus, as a discursive, it resembles various markers of 
reflexives, and the word for "etc." that are short forms for logical 
expressions for which the necessary information is present to construct the 
logical form (if needed), but for which it usually is a pain to actually do it.

Now how this original idea for po'o resembles current usage, I have no idea.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org