From: John Cowan <cowan>
Message-Id: <199802282238.RAA24721@locke.ccil.org>
Subject: Re: Meaning of BAI tags
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 17:38:22 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199802261858.NAA10969@locke.ccil.org> from "Lee Daniel Crocker" at Feb 26, 98 10:39:06 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: ad814273538bc48b3d8dbfbbfcaf87ba
Status: O
X-Mozilla-Status: 8011
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 02 13:45:47 1998
X-From-Space-Address: -

Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:

> But that defeats, as I understand it, the purpose of BAI in the first
> place: to add places to a predication that aren't specified by its
> brivla.  If the information in a BAI is only incidental, then it should
> be expressed that way--with a relative clause or a new bridi.
> 
> Sentences like "I opened the door with my foot" and "I taught math
> in Spanish" should clearly be false if I used my hand or spoke English,
> but "open" has no tool place, and "teach" no language place, so we
> must add then with BAIs.  If we don't give the BAI places full status
> as arguments to the predication just like the brivla places, there's
> no other way to form these new predications except awkward tanru.

Yes, but that's not the point.  The point is that "I taught math in
Spanish" should entail "I taught math" (which it does), and
"I opened the door with my foot" should entail "I opened the door"
(which it does).

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.