WikiDiscuss

On 6/27/05, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Ahah! It is not the adding that is extreme but
> what is added.

Right, the additional case.

I think this is different from the
> emotion cases, where it is the emotion that is
> intensified.

{ji'a} indicates an additional case, not an emotion,
so yes, there are differences. More comparable
would be something like {po'o sai}, which I would
take to indicate not just the only relevant case or
cases but the only one(s) by a long shot.

Here, it is not easy to call this
> intensification, since there is not prior
> information about where the added item lies along
> whatever scale might be relevant (probability for
> the first guess, of course).

Well, there is the same information as to what it
is an additional case for. For whatever it is that it is
indicated as an additional case, it is indicated as
an extreme one.

> > > Of
> > > course, what is added may itself be extreme
> > in
> > > some way, but that seems to be a very
> > different
> > > matter.
> >
> > Of course. Insects may be extreme in number,
> > for
> > example, but what counts in the example is that
> > they are extreme as food for bears.
>
> In any way other than probability or, perhaps,
> conditionality (i.e., bears will eat them only
> under extreme — and that can probably be
> unpacked — conditions)?

We have to work that out from context. (In the case
of English "even" too.)

> {ji'a sai} can be interpreted — largely ad hoc
> — as "even," but it is very unlikely that any
> set of rules given beforehand (or the method used
> in this case generalized to others) gives the
> desired results.

Then use something that works for you. If you like
{ji'a ue} better, use that. For me, {ji'a sai} gives the
desired results. I don't have a problem with "even"
as an extreme form of "also". If you want to call it
ad hoc, or propose something else that for you is
less ad hoc, you are welcome to do so.

> As noted, I have no objection to the usage, just
> to the presentation that suggests (and is
> apparently intended) that the given
> interpretation comes from the interpretation of
> the components in some regular way.

Ok, noted.

mu'o mi'e xorxes