More thoughts on iBAIbo

[CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!BRADFORD.AC.UK!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>]

             Thanks, lojbab, for putting your position on iBAIbo. As
             you say, it is a matter of teaching - except that I
             belive that this is an inconsistency that is going to
             haunt us. I now believe that it is .iCAbo that is
             inconsistent.

             Here is the analysis I have gone through this matter,
             mostly to get clear in my own mind. Others may find it
             useful - or be able to correct it.


             Some background - how I perceived the issue
             ===========================================
             When I came back into Lojban, I was working on my
             memories of Loglan, and whatever I could glean from the
             JL's and bits of textbook I had managed to find. In
             particular I had no cmavyste.

             I observed the derivation in the textbook that went in
             essence
                  .i bale fasnu mi gleki
                  .i baku mi gleki
                  .i mi ba gleki
             and though it very elegant and mnemonic.

             I was surprised when I first came across "sepu'a" in a
             translation, because it seemed the wrong way round - I
             made the Zipfian assumption that "to please" would be the
             basic form and "pleased by" a converted form. Further, I
             expected a parallel between
                  pluka da
             and  pu'a da
             instead of which the parallel is between
                  pluka fada
             and  pu'a da
             Once I got the full cmavyste (logdata3) off the PLS, I
             realised how BAI and their conversions were derived and,
             though I still felt a little uncomfortable with it,
             accepted it as quite elegant, and memorable once you
             understood it. I had quite a lot of trouble getting fixed
             in my head the pairs "ri'a" and "seri'a" etc - for a
             while (still sometimes) I have to go back to the gismu to
             work them out.

             When I came across "bo", it was as the short scope tanru
             link ("ci" in Loglan), and I was happy with this. But
             then I found it odd that it had quite a different use in
             ".ibabo" etc, where it looks more like a separator or
             terminator than a close link. I still think that it is
             nothing more than an overloading of a structural cmavo
             with two quite distinct functions, rather as "ku" was
             formerly overloaded: but here it was allowed because it
             is grammatically unambiguous, as "ku" wasn't.
             Unfortunately, for me, the two functions are not at all
             parallel.

             But I accepted ".ibabo" - realised that it was sort of
             synonymous with ".ibaku" (not quite synonymous because
             the implied reference point for the  "after" is
             different, but near enough).
              Then I met ".iseni'ibo" and got in a hell of a confused
             mess trying to make it out. As I suggested in my previous
             mail, logically it had to mean "because", not "therefore"
             as people were using it.

             Now Lojbab has come back and said, yes, it is
             inconsistent, but "therefore" is what it means, because
             that's what JCB's version did, and because that's what
             we've got used to.

             I thought there was still a problem with other
             conversions ("teka'a" etc), and set about analysing the
             matter to try and prove this.

             I have now come to the following conclusions:
                  ".iseni'ibo" works very nicely, and makes me happier
                            about "bo"
                  It is ".ibabo" that is inconsistent and should
                       really be changed, because it will bite us
                       with every new generation of inquisitive
                       learners.

             My argument is that I can see "bo" as a link - between
             the BAI and the sentence.
                  ".iseni'ibo bu'a"  (is there a non-designating bridi
                                      anaphora? This is really just a
                                      selbri, I think)
             means *roughly* the same as
                  ".iseni'ilenu bu'a"
             except of course that it asserts the bu'a as well.
             This makes me quite happy (.iseri'abo mi gleki) and lets
             me see how to use other BAI, including conversion, in
             this context:
                  ko'a litru ca'o piro le djedi
                       .iseka'abo ko'a co'a gleki sipna
                  "They travelled the whole day. When they got there
                  (i.e. with destination the following) they fell
                  asleep, happy." [Note that "seka'alenu ko'a co'a
                  gleki sipna" would not assert that the did fall
                  asleep, just that that was their destination)

             It leaves slightly open the meaning of <BAI selbri>: does
                  "mi ri'a gleki"
             correspond to
                  ".iri'aku mi gleki"      - I am  causedly happy
             or
                  ".iri'abo mi gleki"      - I am causingly happy?

             I think you can make a case for either - I slightly
             favour the first, since "ri'aku" is part of the bridi,
             whereas "ri'abo" is something outside the bridi.

             However, this analysis *does not* work for ".ibabo" I
             think we should change it. (Note that for most purposes
             ".ibaku" will do for a current ".ibabo").

             ta'o, I've thought up some examples of other BAI that
             rather tickle me.  eg:

                  mi clupa blokla la barbeidos. .i seta'aku mi na'e
             gleki .i caviri mi lifri la'ede'e .iseki'ubo mi teta'a
             je'a gleki

                  I loop boat-went to Barbados. Going-to I was un-
             happy. At-there I experienced what-follows. Therefore I
             coming-from-ly indeed happy.

                                 kolin
                                      c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk