From jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Thu Dec  8 21:22:27 1994
Received: from minerva.phyast.pitt.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA27417
  (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <lojbab@access.digex.net>); Thu, 8 Dec 1994 21:22:24 -0500
Received: from clueless.phyast.pitt.edu by minerva.phyast.pitt.edu (4.1/1.34)
	id AA25086; Thu, 8 Dec 94 21:21:55 EST
Received: by clueless.phyast.pitt.edu (4.1/EMI-2.1)
	id AA01389; Thu, 8 Dec 94 21:26:40 EST
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 21:26:40 EST
From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu
Message-Id: <9412090226.AA01389@clueless.phyast.pitt.edu>
To: lojbab@access.digex.net, jorge@phyast.pitt.edu
Subject: Re: kau and jai issues
Cc: nsn@speech.language.unimelb.edu.au
Status: RO


The most popular use of jai by itself seems to be for {jai rinka} or {jai -ri'a}.
There are 9 of those. I didn't check very carefully, but I suppose it is always 
selecting the actor of the causative event:

> nickb13.txt: .i dei simlu mupli tu'a la'e di'u gi'e ba'e na'e xajmi jai mojri'a
> nickb13.txt:    cu jai rinka lenu krefu srana le lisri se platu kei
> nickb13.txt:       gi'e jai pesri'a fi lei se nibli me la freud. me'u bo pluja
> nickb13.txt:       gi'e po'o jai depri'a
> nickb13.txt:    cu pa'a jai depri'a
> nickb13.txt: .i dei xenru notci lenu le sevra'a lisytadji pu jai rinka
> nickb13.txt:          gi'enai jai tolbilgyri'a le lisfi'i noi nalkurji lazni
> nickb13.txt:    gi'e fanza ke sevra'a jai depri'a
> nickb13.txt: ni'o la'acu'i mapti fa lenu dei xendo je tolsimnycau jai mojri'a

In these, it also appears that the actor is selected:

> nsn93716.txt: .iba'obo ko'a di'i jaise tolzaupai le jecta .e le zgifi'i girzu .i cedra
> nsn93716.txt: .i ko'a seja'e di'a jai selzau je selnei be le cecmu
> nsn93716.txt: loi cnino gi'e jaise zanru le jecta .iku'i co'a la 1928nan. le jecta
> nsn93a05.txt: prosa poi ciki'omei loi valsi zi'e noi .ei jai mulno ba lo jeftu be li

The second most popular is {jai se krefu}, although this is a bit artificial, 
because it is always the same sentence:

> nickb13.txt: dei tcita ledei lisri gi'e so'uroi jaise krefu vi le lisri
> nickb13.txt: dei tcita ledei lisri gi'e so'uroi jaise krefu vi le lisri
> nickb13.txt: .i dei tcita ledei lisri gi'e so'uroi jaise krefu vi le lisri
> nickb13.txt: ni'o dei tcita ledei lisri gi'e so'uroi jaise krefu vi le lisri
> nickb13.txt: .i dei jibni tcita ledei lisri gi'e paroi jaise krefu vi le lisri
> nickb13.txt: ni'o dei tcita ledei lisri gi'e so'uroi jaise krefu vi le lisri

Then there is {jai se mukti}:

> nickb13.txt: .i dei jai se mukti lenu di'u
> nickb13.txt:    to va'i le lisri jufra jai se mukti
> nsn93a23.txt: (tosa'a la bil. co'a jaise mukti lenu co'u xogji toi)

and {jai se fliba}:

> nickb13.txt: .i dei troci co jmiri'a fi le di'u preti gi'e jai se fliba
> nickb13.txt: .i dei ba'e to'e jai se fliba

The remaining cases, some not very clear to me, are:

> nsn93827.txt: no'i ki'e .i mi .e lemi karce ctuca cu jai masti li vo fai lenu mi cilre
> nickb13.txt:                       gi'e jai se zukte fi no kliseljmi
> nickb13.txt: .i dei pinka leka le sevra'a lisysu'a cu jaise juxre kei
> nickb13.txt: .i dei reftoi gi'e jai se dimna le nunfliba ca le cfafa'o
> nsn93827.txt: #.i ui ko jai se salci


I can't conclude anything from these examples, I'm sure Nick can make some
more intelligent comment. I don't think that there is anything wrong in
assuming that for _most_ cases of {jai} with causative events, the selected
sumti will be the actor of the causative event. I didn't find any 
counterexample in Nick's uses. In any case, I'm not proposing that this be
made into an unbreakable rule, just a rule for lujvo making.

Jorge