From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 15 16:37:34 2001
Return-Path: <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 16 Nov 2001 00:37:34 -0000
Received: (qmail 97344 invoked from network); 16 Nov 2001 00:37:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167)
  by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Nov 2001 00:37:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47)
  by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Nov 2001 00:37:34 -0000
Received: from andrew ([62.253.91.222]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com
          (InterMail vM.4.01.03.13 201-229-121-113) with SMTP
          id <20011116003732.AND16860.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew>
          for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:37:32 +0000
To: "lojban" <lojban@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [lojban] Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu?
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:36:49 -0000
Message-ID: <LPBBJKMNINKHACNDIIGMIEBJFAAA.a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011115124501.052aac30@pop.cais.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
From: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@ntlworld.com>
X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12183

> From: Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) [mailto:lojbab@lojban.org]
> At 02:08 PM 11/15/01 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >If it makes sense to ask a yes/no question about a specific part of
> >the sentence then it also makes sense to affirm or negate a
> >specific part of the sentence. Just as xo behaves like a PA and
> >ma behaves like a KOhA, so xu should behave like a JAhA.
> 
> No, that is an argument for all the JAhA to behave like a UI, except that 
> then we would lose the capability for logical negation.

That's why xu/ja'a/na should be in JAhA rather than UI.
 
> My answer is that the strict question which a JAhA answers is not "xu", but 
> ja'axu or naxu, but we interpret sentence scope xu to be the same as 
> ja'axu.

Not a bad answer, but in {du'u xu kau broda} the {xu kau} is to be
replaced with {ja'a} or {na}, and by the usual rule of replacing
like with like, that would mean that {xu} should be in JAhA.

--And.