Date:  Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:37:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199710011637.LAA00341@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      Re: na'enai
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1051
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct  1 11:37:52 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

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

--And