Date:  Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:59:14 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710132059.PAA12932@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: CloversImp@AOL.COM
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Karen Stein <CloversImp@AOL.COM>
Subject:      Re: na'enai
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1534
Lines: 43

I like the simplicity (as I see it) of using na'enai as follows:

> > It seems to me from this discussion that the meaning of "only",
> > (at least one of its meanings) belongs right next to the meaning
> > of "non-", because both require a hard to define "relevant set",
> > so in fact there should be a NAhE that means that. (Something
> > from UI seems a bit messy for this.) I suggest that what we need
> > here is {na'enai}:
> >
> >                 ti na'e fraso
> >                 This one is non-French.
> >
> >                 ta na'enai fraso
> >                 That one is only-French.  (i.e. not non-French.)
> >
> > Any takers?

> It seems OK (or rather: it seems (a) to be very clever and
> (b) to work OK). Some questions then:
>
> 1. What, then, happens to {po`o}? Does it then mean something more
>    like "merely"?

Sorry, I don't have my books handy.

> 2. Does using {na`enai} violate the spirit or letter of the
>    baseline?

I wouldn't think so, but others may disagree.  We usually do, after all.  :)

>>3. How would one say "He is not french and he is non-french"?
>>    - Since lots of people have announced their wish to say such
>>    things easily, is there a simple way to do it? Maybe
>>    {ti na`enai na`e fraso} might be satisfactory?

Number 3 makes sense to me.  I'd find it easy to use and remember, and I
understood it at first glance.  Considering my current level of Lojban use,
this actually says something about it's ease.


> --And

Karen/karis