Re: na'enai

[And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>]

Jorge:
> It seems to me from this discussion that the meaning of "only",
> (at least one of its meanings) belongs right next to the meaning
> of "non-", because both require a hard to define "relevant set",
> so in fact there should be a NAhE that means that. (Something
> from UI seems a bit messy for this.) I suggest that what we need
> here is {na'enai}:
>
>                 ti na'e fraso
>                 This one is non-French.
>
>                 ta na'enai fraso
>                 That one is only-French.  (i.e. not non-French.)
>
> Any takers?

It seems OK (or rather: it seems (a) to be very clever and
(b) to work OK). Some questions then:

1. What, then, happens to {po`o}? Does it then mean something more
   like "merely"?
2. Does using {na`enai} violate the spirit or letter of the
   baseline?
3. How would one say "He is not french and he is non-french"?
   - Since lots of people have announced their wish to say such
   things easily, is there a simple way to do it? Maybe
   {ti na`enai na`e fraso} might be satisfactory?

--And