From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 15 16:37:40 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 16 Nov 2001 00:37:39 -0000
Received: (qmail 99794 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2001 00:37:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167)
  by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Nov 2001 00:37:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47)
  by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 2001 00:37:39 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.91.222]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com
  (InterMail vM.4.01.03.13 201-229-121-113) with SMTP
  id <20011116003737.ANQ16860.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:37:37 +0000
To: "lojban" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu?
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:36:55 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMKEBJFAAA.a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <01111513151207.03953@neofelis>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin

Pierre:
> On Thursday 15 November 2001 09:08, And Rosta wrote:
> > If it makes sense to ask a yes/no question about a specific part of
> > the sentence then it also makes sense to affirm or negate a
> > specific part of the sentence. Just as xo behaves like a PA and
> > ma behaves like a KOhA, so xu should behave like a JAhA.
> 
> To affirm or negate a specific part of the sentence we use {naku} or 
> {na'e}. {na'e} negates one word, so it behaves like {xu} except that it 
> precedes the word; {naku} negates from there to the end of the bridi.

{na'e} means "other than": {na'e broda} means that some relationship
other than broda obtains, but does not claim that broda does not
obtain.

Anyway, you're right about {na ku}, and hence this invalidates
the argument that {xu} must be in UI in order for it to be
possible to question particular parts of the bridi.

BTW, I'm only saying that {xu} ought to have been in JAhA. I accept
it as a fact of life that {xu} is in UI & (as ever) am not calling 
for a baseline revision.

--And.