Message-Id: <m0rEvXQ-00007GC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Tue, 6 Dec 1994 03:43:28 -0500
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: some outstanding issues
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1380
Lines: 29

>Yes, I was mainly thinking of its standalone uses, things like:
>
>jazbai  (jai bapli)     x1(agent) forces x2 to happen by force x3
>jazjde  (jai kajde)     x1(agent) warns x2 of x3 by action x4
>jazyxai (jai xrani)     x1(agent) injures x2 ... by action x5
>jazyzdi (jai zdile)     x1(agent) amuses x2 ... by action x4
>
>and many other selbri that have causative events in x1 but usually
>make sense with an agent there. {-gau} is not very good for this
>because it leaves the causative event in x2, and often that's
>not the best order.

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.

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.

jai bapli merely takes SOME sumti out of the x1 place of bapli and raises it,
or am I misremembering the intent?  Pragmatics must determine which sumti,
and lujvo-making hard-codes the pragmatics into the dictionary.

lojbab
 (BTW,in my 1st paragraph, I was talking about -gau lujvo, if this was not
 clear).