Received: from vms.dc.lsoft.com (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id TAA23378 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 19:50:55 -0400
Message-Id: <199510182350.TAA23378@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 1AE2D904 ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:03:27 -0400
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: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 18 19:50:58 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

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