Re: proposed change to NAI

[cbmvax!uunet!MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU!nsn]

>I am strongly opposed to the idea of a second cmavo of NAI, both for Nick's
>reasons and because I believe it is far too late to introduce such a change.

Yup. In any case, we can push the proposed {nei} into {xV[']V} space.

Any chance of a NAhE KE tense negator, making NAhE apply only to a single
tense? If we can't conveniently bracket-associate tenses, what about
NAhE ZEI as the whole-tense-of-bridi modifier? Kludge, I know, but I'd
rather allow NAhE to modify individual tenses. Or we *could* break up
the PU-FAhA-BAI negation pattern.

>I believe that it makes no sense to logically contradict a non-logical
>connective:
>	mi joinai do klama le zarci
>should not mean the same as simply
>	mi joi do na klama le zarci
>	It is false that you-and-I (as a team) go to the store
>Instead, I favor the translation:
>	You and I (not as a team) go to the store.

You mean it didn't mean this already? Yeech. Burn the mutha. Make the
change.

>I would be willing to abandon the whole mess of logically connected
>abstractions (including negated abstractions).  It was invented to handle
>"three blind mice, see how they run" by concocting an absurd combination of
>abstractors that were meant to capture the vague sense of "how".  I think
>that "kajeni" and "nujezu'onai" and so on are warts.

(Nick looks astonished:)

*THAT*'s what you wanted it for?! Krusta Kristo! *EXTERMINATE* this hack
from the grammar; if you want to scalar negate {nu} and {pu'u}, take
to it to bridi-space ({le na'e pruce je fasnu no'u lesu'u co'e}).

No, folx, it's not inconsisent for me to reject {nei}, and advocate cleaning
up (changing) the grammar. {nei} kills previous usage of UI+NAI ; a NAhE KE
kills nothing in tense, and this NU+NAI business... *shudder* . Talk about
hacks...

Nick, Lord High Grammar-Kibbitzer :)