From - Wed Feb 28 13:58:53 1996
Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id UAA19718 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 20:50:36 -0500
Message-Id: <199602280150.UAA19718@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id EDAB1975 ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 19:04:48 -0500
Date:         Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:12:57 -0700
Reply-To: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>
Subject:      Re: short response to Lojbab on {jai}
To:         lojban@cuvmb.bitnet
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  1203


Lojbab writes:
>> jai + SELBRI implies that the x1 place of "SELBRI" is an abstraction
>>     raised from the stated x1
>> jai + BAI + SELBRI implies that the BAI place of "SELBRI" is an abstraction
>>     raised from the stated x1
>> Thus your example "lo pruce jai fau broda" is the same thing as
>> broda fau tu'a lo pruce, or
>> broda fau lo su'u lo pruce cu brode

But the refgrammar says:
]12.1)  mi tavla bau la lojban.
]       I speak in-language Lojban.
]
]has an explicit x1 place occupied by "mi" and an explicit "bau" place
]occupied by "la lojban."  To exchange these two, we use a modal conversion
]operator consisting of "jai" (of selma'o JAI) followed by the modal cmavo.
]Thus, the modal conversion of Example 12.1 is:
]
]12.2)  la lojban. jai bau tavla fai mi
]       Lojban is-the-language-of-speech used-by me.
]
]In Example 12.2, the modal place "la lojban." has become the x1 place
]of the new selbri "jai bau tavla".

Since not all BAIs take abstractions, it shouldn't be the case that {jai
BAI} automatcially raises the x1.  In this case, your rule would mean 12.2
is equivalent to {mi tavla bau tu'a la lojban.}, which I don't think makes
sense.