From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199407211412.AA07826@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 10:12:32 -0400 (ADT)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <199407202210.AA03522@nfs1.digex.net> from "Chris Bogart" at Jul 20, 94 04:00:09 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:       1203
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jul 21 10:12:50 1994
X-From-Space-Address: lojbab

> I think "bai" comes from "bapli", which takes an event in its x1 place, as in:

Actually, a property (le ka), according to the current gismu list, but no
matter.

>         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

Now it does!

> 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.)

The whole point of making the drafts available is so that people can pick nits
now, before they become embarrassing blunders in print (print is sooooo
permanent....).

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.