Message-Id: <199604101828.OAA29999@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:24:27 -0400
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      *short response to Lojbab on {jai}
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 945

>From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
>Subject:      short response to Lojbab on {jai}
>> 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
>
>I think you're wrong. Assuming we mean {lo pruce cu jai fau broda},
>then it's equivalent to {broda fau lo pruce}. No abstractions need
>be involved.
>
>I accept I may have misunderstood {jai}. I think it functions so as
>to promote BAI places to x1, just as SE does with non-BAI sumti. You
>appear to think {jai + BAI + selbri} is a close cousin of {jai +
>selbri}. I think the meaning you understand for {jai bai selbri}
>is in fact rendered by {jai jai bai selbri}.

My error - you are right.

lojbab