short response to Lojbab on {jai}

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

> Later post:
> >> Different thread:
> >> >> >{lo pruce jai fau broda} would do just as well, and would have a
> >> >> >proper syntax-semantics match.
> >> >> The use of jai IMPLIES the existence of an abstraction by
> >> >> transformation.  Provide the explicit transform, please, without using
> >> >> any abstractors.
> >> >I don't understand. Please try again.
> >> Since "da jai broda" is defined to mean that there is an abstraction in
> >> x1, of which da is a sumti, there must exist such a grammatical
> >> abstraction which results via transformation in the raised form "da jai
> >> broda".  Since we know that is a raised form, I am asking you to define
> >> the corresponding unraised form.
> >But that's a different use of {jai}, isn't it?  I used jai + BAI, but
> >you're talking about jai + SELBRI.
> jai + SELBRI implies that the x1 place of "SELBRI" is an abstraction
>     raised from the stated x1
> jai + BAI + SELBRI implies that the BAI place of "SELBRI" is an abstraction
>     raised from the stated x1
> Thus your example "lo pruce jai fau broda" is the same thing as
> broda fau tu'a lo pruce, or
> broda fau lo su'u lo pruce cu brode

I think you're wrong. Assuming we mean {lo pruce cu jai fau broda},
then it's equivalent to {broda fau lo pruce}. No abstractions need
be involved.

I accept I may have misunderstood {jai}. I think it functions so as
to promote BAI places to x1, just as SE does with non-BAI sumti. You
appear to think {jai + BAI + selbri} is a close cousin of {jai +
selbri}. I think the meaning you understand for {jai bai selbri}
is in fact rendered by {jai jai bai selbri}.
i coo; mie and