From @uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Tue Oct 20 11:16:00 1992
Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Tue, 20 Oct 1992 16:42:40 -0400
Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)    with BSMTP id 2175; Tue, 20 Oct 92 16:40:56 EDT
Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.08 PTF008) id 3419; Tue, 20 Oct 92 16:40:55 EDT
Date:         Tue, 20 Oct 1992 15:16:00 EDT
Reply-To: "(John Cowan)" <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan@UUNET.UU.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
From: "(John Cowan)" <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com!cowan@UUNET.UU.NET>
Subject:      Re: CAFE.INT.REV zoi pu. le kafybarja po'u la jbolaz. pu
X-To:         uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN@uunet.UU.NET
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Status: RO
X-Status: 
Message-ID: <vFF7Axzw5XK.A.hOB.B40kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

On "ze'apu naje ca"; this is indeed grammatical, and probably even preferable
to "ze'apunai je ca", since "-nai" is generally understood to negate the
preceding word only.  Since "punai" is defined to be a contradictory negation
(negating the whole bridi of which this is the tense), its use here is
confusing.

The fact is that PU+nai and its analogue FAhA+nai are warts left over from
Loglan, and should probably be eschewed in all but the simplest constructs.