Date:  Fri, 5 Dec 1997 19:15:04 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712060015.TAA09347@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: kau
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: O
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 803
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec  5 19:15:06 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

De: Mark E. Shoulson <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
 Fecha: Jueves 4 de Diciembre de 1997 14:37
Asunto: Re: kau

>>Date:         Fri, 28 Nov 1997 05:56:01 -0300
>>From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
>>
>>It is not very clear to me why {ba'e} couldn't just have been a UI,
>>and thus spare yet another selmaho, but that's another story.
>
>Because it was considered that the word {nai} is likely to be a candidate
>for emphasis ("I understand (NOT happy)": jimpe .uiba'enai), and having
>{ba'e} in UI would make ba'enai an explicit marker for non-emphasis (which
>someone tried to introduce once, but it was felt that that was sort of
>contradictory).

{ba'enai} seems useful, yes. And you could still emphasise {nai}
with {ba'e} as a UI. That would have been {naiba'e}.

co'o mi'e xorxes