Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t6CNK-0000ZOC; Fri, 20 Oct 95 10:00 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id F349AA61 ; Fri, 20 Oct 1995 9:00:21 +0100 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 00:37:49 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: NAI X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 830 Lines: 17 Since NAI is a permissible standalone word in an utterance, it is a mistake to consider it solely a suffix. It is of course a word because it meets the Lojban definition of a word. You would have a better claim that "ba'e is a prefix and not a word, and likewise "zo", since they CANNOT stand on their own grammatically. i suspect there are sveral other selma'o that cannot stand on their own either - is "ku" a suffix? is "le" a prefix? IN short, I do not see what the point of your claim is - it sounds like you wish to choose another definition of "word ", one which complicates the morphology and the grammar of the language. Just as wishing that we called the apostrophe (or h) a consonant because it happens to be one in most of linguistics, but would make the Lojban design less clear, is less than productive. lojbab