[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: kau
- To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
- Subject: Re: kau
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:42:11 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <199711291717.MAA01859@cs.columbia.edu> (message from JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS on Fri, 28 Nov 1997 05:56:01 -0300)
- Reply-to: "Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
- Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
>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