Return-Path: Message-Id: <9205210422.AA19064@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Thu May 21 07:16:21 1992 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.mu.oz.au!nsn Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!mullian.ee.mu.oz.au!nsn Subject: Re: calling all nay sayers, we want opinions quick! X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, lojbab@grebyn.com To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 19 May 92 14:24:35 -0400." Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Thu May 21 07:16:21 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Don't introduce {nei}. The status quo is preferable to the unreasonable nitpicking a {nei} would bring with it. It's not just the relearning - having the {nei}/{nai} choice will mean hesitant judging every time NAI comes up. I won't have it :( . What I think is required, instead, is a NAhE KE to modify the whole tense construct, and a NAhE to precede each individual tense component, just as NAI now follows each such component. But no, I *do* have to draw the line at creeping featurism somewhere, and nai/nei duplicating NA/NAhE is not a feature, it's a kludge. And a damn ugly one. Thumbs down. Nick, the {nai}-sayer :)