Return-Path: <LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@BITMAIL.LSOFT.COM>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t5jYN-0000ZOC; Thu, 19 Oct 95 03:13 EET
Message-Id: <m0t5jYN-0000ZOC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id FE9EE1A6 ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 2:13:50 +0100
Date:         Wed, 18 Oct 1995 19:30:44 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      NAI
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 464
Lines: 10

On what grounds is {nai} deemed a word rather than a suffix?
It has an idiomatic semantic relationship with the word it
attaches to, and it can attach to syntactically invisible words
(UI), so that {gie oi nai} = {gie} rather than {gie nai}.
These considerations lead me to conclude that {nai} is a
suffix rather than a word. Slightly more tentatively, I
conclude that there is no selmao NAI. If I am right, we discover
a new kind of morphology in Lojban.
---
And