From mark@xxx.xxx Mon Aug 23 20:47:38 1999
X-Digest-Num: 219
Message-ID: <44114.219.1187.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: 24 Aug 1999 03:47:38 -0000
From: mark@xxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Mark's proposed "ja'ai" already exists

>From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
>Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:03:42 -0400 (EDT)
>
>From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
>
>Blunderingly I wrote:
>
>> >There is already a positive analogue to "nai", and that is "jo'a".
>> >It can be attached to attitudes to make them explicitly positive,
>> >or used as a general metalinguistic affirmer: this is so, despite
>> >appearances otherwise.
>> >
>> >Grammatically "jo'a" belongs to UI rather than NAI, but that simply
>> >means it cannot be used in place of the non-attitudinal uses of "nai",
>> >such as with connectives, tenses, etc. (In practice if you want
>> >to say ".ejo'a" it is grammatical 99% of the time.)
>
>Mark Shoulson hrmphed:
>
>> Hrmph. I'm not sure I'm satisfied. If ja'o means the same as my proposed
>> ja'ai, then na'i must be the same as nai.
>
>Oops. jo'a is the counterpart of na'i indeed. There is no counterpart
>of nai; jo'a = na'inai.

'Zactly. That's what {ja'ai} is: another cmavo of selma'o NAI, the
counterpart to {nai}. Just as {ja'a} is to {na}, {ja'ai} is to {nai}.

~mark