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.

Now I really have trouble: what is more only than
"only," an absolute concept I would have thought
(it is just a quantified conditional after all).
Are you saying that {po'o} means "only relevant
case" and {po'o sai} means "only case period"?
That actually makes sense, but is ungeneralizable
to other concepts, "addition" for example. Each
of these critters (even the ones that are all
emotions) has its own logic and the 7-point scale
(or the 3-point) interacts with that logic in a
unique way, often not predictable (or regu;arly
explicable) from the logic and scale addition.

> 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.

Still, the notion of adding an extreme case is
very different from almost any other use of
{sai}, so, even if this makes sense here, it is
not generalizable as a useful guide to what {sai}
means away from emotions (and that is not great
for some of the emotion cases even).

> > > > 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.)

I don't see "even" as presenting the same
problem; we may wonder about what is the source
of the improbability of the improbable addition
but we know that it is a matter of probability,
not some other unknown scale).

> > {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.

I have no problem with ad hoc explanations or
using them to help one remember or consider
reasonable some interpretation of a form. My
problem is with talk like "{ji'a sai} gives the
desired result" as though those results were
inherent in the form (and surrounding apparatus)
rather than in you — though you do qualify it
this time with "for me," which suggests a more
subjective approach.

> > 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.

It would be nice if it were acted upon as well,
and retroactively to some earlier cases.