Re: kau

[JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>]

De: Mark E. Shoulson <shoulson@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU>
 Fecha: Jueves 4 de Diciembre de 1997 14:37
Asunto: Re: kau

>>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).

{ba'enai} seems useful, yes. And you could still emphasise {nai}
with {ba'e} as a UI. That would have been {naiba'e}.

co'o mi'e xorxes