Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t5zrz-0000ZOC; Thu, 19 Oct 95 20:39 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 066E9CE8 ; Thu, 19 Oct 1995 19:39:10 +0100 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:58:42 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: NAI X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199510182350.TAA23378@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Oct 18, 95 07:30:44 pm Content-Length: 786 Lines: 20 la .and. cusku di'e > 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. Parser input: nai Parser output: (nai /FA'O/) As shown above, "nai" is a valid stand-alone text. Admittedly, this is a marginal use of "nai", and most uses are indeed suffixal. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.