TECH: new cmavo "ju'e"

This is not a grammar change, but simply the assignment of a new cmavo
"ju'e" to selma'o JOI, as the "unspecified non-logical connective".

Using this cmavo solves two problems: it eliminates the need for Jorge's
proposed change X1, and it allows a kind of compression that Veijo was
talking about last year that never got taken up.

Proposal X1 wanted to make a new kind of joik, namely "stag BO".  I
modified this proposal to make it a new kind of joik+BO, which can only
appear in sumti, tanru, MEX operands, and MEX operators.  (Consideration
of the last exposed the existing ambiguity that lead to Change 39, just
posted.)  However, Lojban Central feels that having compounder selma'o
involving "stag" is dangerous unless there is both a beginning and an
as in "I stag BO", "ek stag BO", "gihek stag BO", and the like; there
might be a hidden ambiguity involving a stag followed by a non-compounded
BO, and nothing except experimentation (thought or computer) can pick
up such ambiguities.

However, I convinced Bob that the pure causal construction of the form

1)	mi ??+ri'a+bo do cilre la lojban.
	I, caused by you, learn Lojban.

was useful and necessarily, parallel to the forethought form:

2)	ri'agi mi gi do cilre la lojban.

which is already available.

We therefore hit on the idea of a "neutral JOI" which would retain the
existing grammar "joik stag BO" but would have the semantics of Example 1.
A free "j-" cmavo is "ju'e", so we now have:

3)	mi ju'eri'abo do cilre la lojban.

(A point: presumably the afterthought equivalent of "giri'a by. gi dy."
should be "by. ju'e seri'a bo dy.", with conversion of the BAI.  But
perhaps not: I have to think this point out.)

In addition, we now have the method for reducing ".i" linked sentences
that Veijo wanted:

4)	mi klama le zarci .i do klama le zarci

now reduces to

5)	mi ju'e do klama le zarci

with a vague (non)-logical connection; could mean "ije" or "ijebabo" or
who knows what.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.