BAI links to what

[cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc]

> Nick still catching up: (and jimc still catching up)
> ...  The analysis is needed to
> show why some omissions of {ne/pe} are nonsensical. Hands up all those 
> who treated {be'i} as a true sumtcita dangling in the sentence, instead
> of sticking it next to the sent thing {lo se benji}. 
> 
> ...  I find gold with a metal detector, {be'i la djan.}. What did john 
> send - the gold, the detector, or me?  be'i needs a ne/pe link, and ...

mi kalte lo solji sepi'o le jimkatbra  be     be'i    la djan.
I  hunt     gold  using  metaldetector *glue* sent-by    John

A <BAI> phrase is a tagged sumti just as if fe, fi, etc. had been used, and
as such it sticks to the main bridi if not glued (as with sepi'o here), or
to a s-bridi if be or bei appears, as with be'i here.  Thus, unambiguously,
it was the device that was sent by John.  

I can understand using "ne" as an abbreviation for a clause with noi,
like this:

... le jimkatbra      be     ne              be'i    la djan.
    the device        *glue* *supplementary* sent-by    john
... le jimkatbra noi            se benji    la djan.
    the device   *suppl.clause* was sent by    John

--although pc has pounded into my head over and over that it's more in
the spirit of Lojban to use the subordinate clause in preference to
just about any other structure.  In contrast, specified description
(sumti glued to sumti) is restrictive and so I don't see why one might
use "pe" in this pattern -- I suspect it's merely symmetry in the
grammar.

An aside:  See the pretty diklujvo above, jimkatbra?  Lojbab has
challenged me whether live users really interpret diklujvo right,
without having memorized the rules. So:  I'd appreciate (I guess by
direct reply rather than on the net) hearing whether people were able
to interpret it.  Or, if you didn't bother looking up the rafsi, if you
would have interpreted correctly the related tanru 

(jinme kalte) cabra
 metal hunt   apparatus

If not, what interpretation did you put on it?  Or what ambiguities do
you find lurking in the diklujvo (I can see at least two.)  The
official jimc interpretation is 

    le cabra     be lo nu        kalte fe lo jinme
       apparatus for (events of) hunt  for metal

cabra = x1 is an apparatus for function x2 controlled by x3
kalte = x1 hunts quarry x2 for purpose x3
jinme = x1 is metal of type x2

Reasoning (to be carried out with a snap of the fingers): kalte is an 
actor-victim kind of word, and jinme is an object kind of word, therefore
jinme goes into kalte x2.  cabra x2 is naturally inhabited by abstract
sumti, so make the pre-term (jinme kalte) abstract and stick it in.

		-- jimc