Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:08:26 +0200
From: GREGORY DYKE <gregory.dyke@epfl.ch>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: A couple of questions
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Message-id: <1c6e41ca63.1ca631c6e4@imap.epfl.ch>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: en
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Content-Length: 1364

cu'u la tespis.

> 2) I  have read  sentences similar  to "mi  tavla bau  la  
> lojban." in
>   various places (and in the  RefGramm itself) but according to other
>   parts of the RefGramm and the downloadable gismu list, the language
>   in which one is speaking is  expressed by the x4 place of 
> tavla. So
>   it is  also possible to  say "mi tavla  fo la lojban."  Why  is BAI
>   preferred to FA in such cases? Is it really? Should it be?

There is a case for both. I prefer FA, because {tavla} is defined as
having a language in place x4 - overloading with BAI is unhelpful: what
could {mi tavla bau le glico fo le lojbo} mean? In general, place
structures being a key element of the language, making use of the is a
Good Thing.

On the other hand, the latter places of a gismu are not necessarily easy
to remember and bau gives a much clearer indication of what the place
represents than using fo. It is up to future lojbanists to decide which
is preferable - complete usage of language features or explicit
transparence of place structure...  


> .i XXX ca'e zo. tespis. lojbo cmene mi
> (Please tell me which attitudinal I should use here instead of XXX 
> to 
> express the restriction that the words "at least" would express in 
> English...)


I can't remember what ca'e means - and I can't work out what you are
trying to say...

mu'o mi'e greg