Message-Id: <m0qajzx-00004xC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 17 Aug 1994 07:47:08 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: xruti
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1079
Lines: 25

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