Re: kau

["Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>]

>Date:         Fri, 28 Nov 1997 05:56:01 -0300
>From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
>
>It is not very clear to me why {ba'e} couldn't just have been a UI,
>and thus spare yet another selmaho, but that's another story.

Because it was considered that the word {nai} is likely to be a candidate
for emphasis ("I understand (NOT happy)": jimpe .uiba'enai), and having
{ba'e} in UI would make ba'enai an explicit marker for non-emphasis (which
someone tried to introduce once, but it was felt that that was sort of
contradictory).

~mark