Re: TECH: word "only"

[John Cowan <cowan@SNARK.THYRSUS.COM>]

la kartr. djim. cusku di'e

> Thus, as Colin points out, the keyword "only" is very ambiguous and should
> be avoided, and the English word is Protean (not Procrustean).

Probably correct.  If we strike "only" and stick to "uniquely" and "singly"
and "exceptionally", does the discursive still seem worthwhile?

(Lojbab also asked if "still" and "just" fit in here, but I think they have
rather to do with the other outstanding problem involving ZAhO sumti tcita.)

> (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".

This is "no'e dukse", where "dukse" = x1 is excessive/too much of x2 by std x3.

> (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".

This would be some lujvo, but I don't know what offhand.  "Almost" is a number.

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

"banzu": x1 is sufficient for purpose x2 under cond. x3

> (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.

"dukse"

> (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.

"to'e dukse".  The idea of separating "too much" and "too little" as gismu
(they are also numbers) was rejected at Logfest '90.

--
John Cowan      cowan@snark.thyrsus.com         ...!uunet!lock60!snark!cowan
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban.