Date:  Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:42:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712041742.MAA11682@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: kau
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  <199711291717.MAA01859@cs.columbia.edu> (message from JORGE
              JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS on Fri, 28 Nov 1997 05:56:01 -0300)
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 553
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Dec  4 12:42:12 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

>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).

~mark