Message-Id: <m0qQkpQ-000023C@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 20 Jul 1994 19:16:14 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 1404
Lines: 32

la kris cusku di'e

> I don't mean to be nitpicky; I realize it's just a draft,

Do be nitpicky, because it won't be a draft for long. One of the
resolutions of the solemn assembly at Logfest was to put the refgrammar
as next in line to be published after the dictionary, which will
be published by september of some year.  :)

Besides, if you're not nitpicky what are we going to talk about around here.
Either be nitpicky or write some Lojban, or both.

> but I wanted to
> clear up whether that was an error in the paper or whether "bai"'s sumti
> really doesn't need to be raised.  (I'm rooting for "bai tu'a la lojbab.",
> by the way; the possibility of "bai la lojbab." na se gleki mi.)

Surely you mean tu'a the possibility.  :)

> (ta'o) I am a great fan of tu'a and of the minds that conceived of such a
> word -- it's a little chunk of intellectual rigor boiled down into two
> syllables.

I'm not so much a fan of tu'a as a fan of consistency. I agree with you
that bai needs a tu'a, although I've always used it without it. I'll try
to remember next time. The problem is that the definitions are plagued with
slots that allow object/event, while others only allow one type, and I
don't see any rule being followed. For example, le se spuda and le se nelci
can be object/event, but le bapli and le se djica only events. I don't see
what makes the ones more loose than the others.

mi'e xorxes