Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qQpEG-000023C; Thu, 21 Jul 94 06:55 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3026; Thu, 21 Jul 94 06:54:01 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3024; Thu, 21 Jul 1994 06:54:01 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7172; Thu, 21 Jul 1994 05:53:09 +0200 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 23:53:54 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: ciska bai tu'a zo bai X-To: cbogart@quetzal.com X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 419 Lines: 9 Great. Someone has actually used our archetype BAI cmavo. I more or less agree that the tu'a would be preferred. Historically, the BAIs were not so rigidly tied to the place structures, but instead relied on them for general semantic guidelines. The language has evolved towards matching place structures, and the closer the match, the more that the semantics of the places applies to the BAI-tagged sumti. lojbab