Message-Id: <199308250957.AA00443@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Date:         Wed, 25 Aug 1993 10:55:14 +0100
Reply-To: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Colin Fine <C.J.Fine@BRADFORD.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: a usage problem, and a solution
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
Status: O

Bob:
+++++++++++>
My problem was to come up with a grammatical method to express what I wanted,
without having to "sa" and start the sentence over again.  Since I am indeed
trying to express a topic as x1 (which may be the underlyi
ng reason for
sumti-raising in natlangs, anyway), a construct that explicitly makes it a
topic works.

This is not to say that "jai" doesn't also work.  But I have distrusted it
from Nick's original proposal since I couldn't relate it to what I
 am
doing in my head when I sumti-raise.  I still haven't successfully done so,
though this example at least is relevant to a real usage problem wherein
tu'a doesn't work naturally.  But I am still inclined to trust the prenex
topicalizing more than jai, if people don't find it in some way flawed.
>++++++++++

I have used 'jai' on the fly in exactly this sort of case.


The 'pure' way to do it is of course

le nu mi broda cu galfi zo'e

and 'jai' was invented precisely to allow the transform

mi jai galfi zo'e [fai le nu mi broda]

If the 'fai' phrase is included these are by definition
synonymous; if it is omitted then there is something
unspecified.

So Jim's  gafyzba (not gafrzba, ta'o) while probably
expressing what Bob wanted to say, is at best a
paraphrase.

I didn't like"tu'a" at all when I first met it - I thought it
was pernickety. I now think that it is important and useful.
In the best Loglan tradition it makes explicit that something
is being left unstated.
I didn't understand "jai" at all when I first met it (in the form
of Nick's experimental "xe'e"). I now think that it is a
useful counterpart of tu'a

        Colin