From: Logical Language Group <lojbab>
Message-Id: <199412201639.AA05109@access2.digex.net>
Subject: Re: kau and jai issues
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 11:39:35 -0500 (EST)
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group)
In-Reply-To: <9412200419.1356@speech.language.unimelb.edu.au> from "Nick Legend Nicholas" at Dec 20, 94 03:19:34 pm
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length:       1205
Status: RO

la nitcion. cusku di'e

> d) jai, irrespective of all this, *must* get a rafsi, and a good rafsi at
> that. To not give it a rafsi is to limit expressiveness. It is precisely
> with non-agentive raising --- which will happen a lot, which cannot be done
> by -gau, and which is infrequent in our texts to date only because, as I've 
> often maintained, the consequences of unraised predicates have yet to sink in 
> in Lojbanistan --- where it will see most use, and where a rafsi will be sorely
> missed, if absent.
> 
> Give it a good rafsi. If jar or jan or jal or jam are available, let jai have
> it. Usage won't argue for this because usage hasn't yet realised that unraised
> predicates present difficulties, which can't be resolved just by -gau. It will
> pay to plan ahead.

Too late now.  Every ja? rafsi is allocated except jax and jaz, and jaz is
the better of the two.  Even ja'i is gone, and any other ja'? rafsi is
unthinkable.  (jai jar jan jal jam are jgari, jdari, janco, janli, jamna
respectively.)

But I agree that "jai" does deserve a rafsi nonetheless, even if it's
a not-so-good rafsi.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.