On Jan 13, 2011, at 15:29, Robin Lee Powell wrote:(This is my first comment on this topic.)
Well, {ge'e} being exactly that was my point there; {ba'e} is *very*
generic emphasis. As far as I can tell it's actually pretty
un-Lojbanic; it seems to mean "I'd verbally empasize this if I was
speaking English".
je'u works; {.o'o cu'i} works, others.
I first saw the relevant meaning of emphasis as "This is the part of my utterance which is actually interesting, as opposed to being required for context and grammar." Which neither of your suggestions really conveys.
I now note that this is almost-but-not-quite {bi'u} or possibly {jo'a}.
If I were making arbitrary changes, I would keep ba'e as a word, but move all of BAhE (ba'e and za'e) into UI3a next to {bi'u}, thus simplifying the grammar. What you lose is the ability to emphasize (not important) or mark as nonce (possibly very important) a member of UI, since you can't modify a UI with a UI (right?).
--
Kevin Reid <http://switchb.org/kpreid/>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.