Re: a usage problem, and a solution

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

Since I know what Nick was trying to say, since he knows what I am doing with th
the gismu list:  I am modifying the gismu list to reflect what JCB wrote
about the comparble (i.e. relevant) gismu in his list, as appropriate.

The problem, and hence any solutions thereto, is that of afterthought
sumti-raising.  If I had been selbri oriented in my thinking rather than sumti/t
/topic oriented (which may or may not be malglico), then I might indeed have cho

chosen a different selbri, so as to make it work.  Having already expressed the

sumti, and knowing the places I am trying to relate, it is often more
difficult to come up with exactly what selbri I want than time permits.
Therefore I indeed fall back on sumti-raising which Is indeed malglico or
at least malrarnybangu.

My problem was to come up with a grammatical method to express what I wanted,
without having to "sa" and start the sentence over again.  Since I am indeed
trying to express a topic as x1 (which may be the underlyi
ng reason for
sumti-raising in natlangs, anyway), a construct that explicitly makes it a
topic works.

This is not to say that "jai" doesn't also work.  But I have distrusted it
from Nick's original proposal since I couldn't relate it to what I
 am
doing in my head when I sumti-raise.  I still haven't successfully done so,
though this example at least is relevant to a real usage problem wherein
tu'a doesn't work naturally.  But I am still inclined to trust the prenex
topicalizing more than jai, if people don't find it in some way flawed.

lojbab