Re: TECH: grammar updates

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>]

Not thinking much as I respond (as often):

the historical allowance or not-allowance of SE+BAI I think is irrelevant
to the question of mo'u, except insofar as it may IMPLY that there is a
two place relationship when there is not.  After all, old Loglan had cmavo
corresponding to semau and several others of the se+BAI or te+BAI or ...
sort - they just were single cmavo, and you had to remember from the memory
hook which ONE place was the tagged sumti.  Thus a single cmavo "mou" means
the same as "semau" in the TLI versions of the language.  We added the
"se"s to make the memory hooksto the brivla more explicit, and to incidentally
allow the compression of words or expansion of possibilities implied by
being able to use bai and sebai (though usually this is irrelevant because
in most cases, only 1 of the places associated with the memory hook brivla
is actually useful.

In any event, your argument would answer only the issue of a BAI-based "mo'u",
whereas there is also the secondary issue of a "mo'u
that would join a brivla/selbri (and hence be a mo'u equivalent of noi/poi?),
.  I don't think this is as badly needed, but is the obvious answer to your
objection: if a BAI takes only 1 place then you shoul be able to get more
places in with a full relative clause.

Still, I suspect that you are right and whatever was important about the
original version of mo'u in the draft textbook has been determined illogical
or moot.

lojbab