From lojbab Wed Aug 17 07:47:13 1994 Received: from access1.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA25924 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 17 Aug 1994 07:47:10 -0400 Received: by access1.digex.net id AA23073 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Wed, 17 Aug 1994 07:47:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 07:47:08 -0400 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199408171147.AA23073@access1.digex.net> To: nsn@vis.mu.oz.au Subject: Re: xruti Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO OK, I wasn't sure that there was agreement that klama was either animate or volitional, but given those distinctions, I can live with it. I would suspect that if "-gau" is causing problems with x2, you may need a new convention that does not cause x2 patient. Either that, or change "jai" to something that can get a useful rafsi, which will in turn probably cause some other rafsi changes. Can you tell us what the lujvo lisy has in the way of -gau lujvo, and how many of them are benefited vs. hurt by the x2 instrument. Remmebering that -gau and -zu'e (which I presume also has the same problem) are unique among gismu in being designed to cause raising, special conventions for them might not be a bad thing. In effect you are 'hiding' a 'jai', if I understand the effect that jai would have onm the lujvo place structure - moving the instrument to the end. I will add "revert" into the definition of "xruti" whether or not the place structure changes. You sound like you strongly support the change Jorge proposes. Now what do other active Lojbanists think? lojbab