Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0rEmq2-00007GC; Tue, 6 Dec 94 01:28 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2355; Tue, 06 Dec 94 01:29:12 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2353; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 01:29:11 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9709; Tue, 6 Dec 1994 00:25:34 +0100 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 18:28:40 EST Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: some outstanding issues X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1020 Lines: 25 la djan cusku di'e > > 2- A rafsi for {jai}. Since all SE have rafsi, and {jai} is very much > > like a SE, I think it could use one too. jaz seems to be available. > > I suspect this is not useful for "jai" followed by BAI or tense, as no BAI > has a rafsi (use the gismu) and only a few tenses. For "jai" standing alone, > there may be a case. 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. Of course, it is not always necessary to make a lujvo, it is enough to use jai by itself, but the same is true of the SE cmavo. Jorge