TECH: "only and "mi'u"

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

John Cowan writes in response to me:
>> Just to ask a stupid question - if the "only" cmavo means "without parallel",
>> what do we have the negation of the "parallel" discursive meaning, and would
>> it better be applied in this way.
>
>"parallel" is probably a bad word.  I assume what you are referring to
>is {mi'u}, discursive ditto, which has no defined opposite.

That is the word I had in mind (having finally checked).  So, could
mi'unai be reasonably interpreted (or stretched) as "only, exclusively".
If so, we save ourselves a cmavo.  The only other direction I can go in
my head as an "opposite" to mi'u, leads to something of a flavor similar
to "ku'i", but more restricted in scope.

lojbab