From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 15 16:37:40 2001 Return-Path: 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 ; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:37:37 +0000 To: "lojban" Subject: RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu? Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:36:55 -0000 Message-ID: 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" 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.