Message-Id: <199412070003.AA09361@nfs2.digex.net>
Date:         Tue, 6 Dec 1994 16:01:50 EST
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: some outstanding issues
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Status: RO

la lojbab cusku di'e

> This is a problem with the lujvo-making rules then, because I would tend
> to delete the causative event, or shift it to the end - which is exactly
> what I think you have done in your examples above.

-gau works well for things like:

citka (eat) -> ctigau (feed)
bredi (ready) -> redgau (prepare, make ready)
morji (remember) -> morjygau (remind)
kalri (open) -> kargau (to open)
glare (hot) -> glagau (to heat)

and many more. These are only a few from the lujvo list.

In all of these, -gau is not selecting the actor from a causative
event, but creating a new place in x1 for the agent causing the
event described by the other part of the lujvo.

Letting -gau do also what you want, i.e. select the actor of the
causative event, would spoil this simplicity, and also really
duplicate what jai does.

> But jai bapli does NOT necessarily agentify bapli - that is also an
> assumption that would have to go into the lujvo paper (which obviously does
> not cover the case since jai does not yet have the rafsi).  I am opposed
> to jai being automatically used as an agentifier, since the best arguyment
> for accepting it is its genericness.

I know it doesn't necessarily select the actor place _in theory_, but in
practice it does (Nick is about the only one who uses it, so he will
correct me if I'm wrong). For the lujvo case, it would be reasonable
to make it a lujvo rule that the place selected is for the agent.
(By lujvo rule I mean that it doesn't have to be really strict, but that
it is safe to assume that it will apply in general.)

Jorge