Date:  Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:08:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711071408.JAA21998@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: mark.vines@wholefoods.com
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Mark Vines <vinesm@wholefoods.com>
Subject:      Re: Beginner question: seitu'a lo velrimni je pemci
X-To:         LOJBAN@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@MATH.ACAD.BG> "Re: Beginner question:
              seitu'a lo velrimni je pemci" (Nov  7,  3:19pm)
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 765
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov  7 09:09:06 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

.i la .ivan. spuda mi di'e

> Mark Vines wrote:
> > [...] the first sumti, a position I think of as
> > the topical.
>
> Is the notion that x1 is a topic position supported
> by the standard?

.i mi spuda la .ivan. di'e

Not explicitly, as far as I know ... but the notion
may be implied by the existence of "bridi-tail"
conjunction cmavo, & other points of grammar, such
as the effect of {gadri} descriptors, that do appear
to "privilege" the x1 position.

However, the version of the ma'oste that I keep on
my computer at work implies something to the
contrary:  namely, that a prenex should be used to
introduce a topic.

So I'm not sure what the standard specifies about
topics.  Everthemore, I continue to think of the x1
position as topical.

co'omi'e markl.