Re: kau

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

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

The problem with ba'e appearing afterwards is that it is ambiguous as to
interactions with other attitudinals.  Would klama ba'e .ui mean that
we were emphasizing and happy about klama, or that we were emphasizing
klama and happy about the fact that we were emphasizing it.

Now perhaps you analytical types can see some way to resolve this, but
of course attitudinals aren't supposed to be analyzed, but merely expressed.
Emphasis, on the other hand, seemed to us to be a more metalinguistic
function, one that would occur with rational forethought more often than not.

lojbab