Re: TECH: word "only"

[jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU]

On John Cowan's proposal of a UI discursive:
>         xu'o:   exceptionally, uniquely, only
Colin Fine responds:
> I am very ambivalent about this. THe repeated difficulty we have had with
> 'only' does indeed suggest that there is something missing; but the
> difficulty we have had analysing what, suggests that either something is
> broken, or 'only' is such a procrustean word that every use is different.

I very much agree.  The word "only" was one of the first that I broke my
teeth on.  Here is a short list of meanings, supplementing what Colin
wrote:

(1)     The only way is love            There is exactly one X which is
                                        a tadji (way), AND X is love
(2)     I ate only two cookies          I ate two cookies, AND two is less
                                        than the expected number for this
                                        situation
(3)     I only ate two cookies          I ate two cookies, AND that event
                                        is less than what would normally
                                        justify the criticism or punishment
                                        that you are putting me through
(4)     She is only a servant           She is a servant, AND this condition
                                        implies a social status that is less
                                        than what is normally expected for
                                        the present situation
(5)     Smoke if you want, only not     Smoke if you want [discursive of
        where I can smell it.           contrast] don't smoke where...

Thus, as Colin points out, the keyword "only" is very ambiguous and should
be avoided, and the English word is Protean (not Procrustean).
Syntactically in these examples, "only" is a 1-word abbreviation for a
deep structure consisting of a rather complicated supplementary
subordinate clause.

Meanings 2,3,4 are closely related.  In -gua!spi, to solve the "only"
problem, I came up with the following list of gismu (showing only the
definitions):

(a)  Object x1 is sufficient in dimension x3 for event/condition x2 to be
     true about it (x2 and x3 contain a cleft place replicating / ke'a'ing
     x1).  Default x2 is "to qualify as x3".  Scalar neutral negation gives
     "insufficient".

(b)  Object x1 is not quite sufficient ("almost" sufficient) in dimension
     x3 for event/condition x2 to be true about it.  Polar
     opposite negation gives "barely".

(c)  Antecedent event x1 is a sufficient condition for consequence x2 to occur

(d)  x1 is more than usual or expected on dimension x2 for members of set x3.
     Scalar neutral negation gives "fairly", i.e. at the high end of the
     usual range.

(e)  x1 is less than usual or expected...  Scalar neutral negation gives
     "somewhat", i.e. at the low end of the usual range.  Polar opposite
     negation could conceivably be interpreted as converting (d) into (e),
     but I wanted a clear route to obtain "somewhat", so I gave a separate
     gismu.

Negated versions of (a) or (c), with an implied pronoun in x2 connecting
to the implied enclosing circumstance presumably expressed in preceeding
discourse, give the "only" meanings of 2, 3 and 4.   (e) can also be used
to translate example 2.

James F. Carter        Voice 310 825 2897       FAX 310 206 6673
UCLA-Mathnet;  6221 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA  90024-1555
Internet: jimc@math.ucla.edu            BITNET: jimc%math.ucla.edu@INTERBIT
UUCP:...!{ucsd,ames,ncar,gatech,purdue,rutgers,decvax,uunet}!math.ucla.edu!jimc