Re: Mark's proposed "ja'ai" already exists
ma...@kli.org
>Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 00:03:42 -0400 (EDT)
>
>From: John Cowan <co...@locke.ccil.org>
>
>Blunderingly I wrote:
>
>> >There is already a positive analogue to "nai", and that is "jo'a".
>> >It can be attached to attitudes to make them explicitly positive,
>> >or used as a general metalinguistic affirmer: this is so, despite
>> >appearances otherwise.
>> >
>> >Grammatically "jo'a" belongs to UI rather than NAI, but that simply
>> >means it cannot be used in place of the non-attitudinal uses of "nai",
>> >such as with connectives, tenses, etc. (In practice if you want
>> >to say ".ejo'a" it is grammatical 99% of the time.)
>
>Mark Shoulson hrmphed:
>
>> Hrmph. I'm not sure I'm satisfied. If ja'o means the same as my proposed
>> ja'ai, then na'i must be the same as nai.
>
>Oops. jo'a is the counterpart of na'i indeed. There is no counterpart
>of nai; jo'a = na'inai.
'Zactly. That's what {ja'ai} is: another cmavo of selma'o NAI, the
counterpart to {nai}. Just as {ja'a} is to {na}, {ja'ai} is to {nai}.
~mark
John Cowan
> >There is already a positive analogue to "nai", and that is "jo'a".
> >It can be attached to attitudes to make them explicitly positive,
> >or used as a general metalinguistic affirmer: this is so, despite
> >appearances otherwise.
> >
> >Grammatically "jo'a" belongs to UI rather than NAI, but that simply
> >means it cannot be used in place of the non-attitudinal uses of "nai",
> >such as with connectives, tenses, etc. (In practice if you want
> >to say ".ejo'a" it is grammatical 99% of the time.)
Mark Shoulson hrmphed:
> Hrmph. I'm not sure I'm satisfied. If ja'o means the same as my proposed
> ja'ai, then na'i must be the same as nai.
Oops. jo'a is the counterpart of na'i indeed. There is no counterpart
of nai; jo'a = na'inai.
--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
ma...@kli.org
>Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:59:59 -0400 (EDT)
>
>From: John Cowan <co...@locke.ccil.org>
>
>There is already a positive analogue to "nai", and that is "jo'a".
>It can be attached to attitudes to make them explicitly positive,
>or used as a general metalinguistic affirmer: this is so, despite
>appearances otherwise.
>
>Grammatically "jo'a" belongs to UI rather than NAI, but that simply
>means it cannot be used in place of the non-attitudinal uses of "nai",
>such as with connectives, tenses, etc. (In practice if you want
>to say ".ejo'a" it is grammatical 99% of the time.)
Hrmph. I'm not sure I'm satisfied. If ja'o means the same as my proposed
ja'ai, then na'i must be the same as nai.
~mark
John Cowan
It can be attached to attitudes to make them explicitly positive,
or used as a general metalinguistic affirmer: this is so, despite
appearances otherwise.
Grammatically "jo'a" belongs to UI rather than NAI, but that simply
means it cannot be used in place of the non-attitudinal uses of "nai",
such as with connectives, tenses, etc. (In practice if you want
to say ".ejo'a" it is grammatical 99% of the time.)
--