From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Wed Jul 20 18:10:07 1994 Message-Id: <199407202210.AA03522@nfs1.digex.net> Date: Wed Jul 20 18:10:07 1994 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: ciska bai tu'a zo bai To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Status: RO >From the draft reference grammar (I downloaded it months ago; I hope I'm not picking nits off a dead horse) 9.1) mi tavla bau la lojban. bai la lojbab. I speak in-language Lojban with-compeller Lojbab. I speak in Lojban, under compulsion by Lojbab. I think "bai" comes from "bapli", which takes an event in its x1 place, as in: tu'a la lojbab. cu bapli lenu mi tavla some-abstraction-about Lojbab forces the-event-of I speak ...which I approve of because I think the customarily "raised" subject of the English word "force" is particularly conducive to sophistry. So why doesn't this example in the reference grammar say: mi tavla bau la lojban. bai tu'a la lojbab. I speak in-language lojban, compelled-by some-abstration-wrt Lojbab I don't mean to be nitpicky; I realize it's just a draft, 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.) (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. (ta'onai) It seems to me that the modal "bai" is akin to the causal modals, ri'a, mu'i, ku'i, and ni'i. mi tavla .ibaibo la lojbab. te xarci mi I speak. THis is compelled by: Lojbab points a weapon at me or mi tavla bai lenu la lojbab. te xarci mi I speak, compelled-by the-event-of lojbab points a weapon at me ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Chris Bogart cbogart@quetzal.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~