Re: short response to Lojbab on {jai}

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@QUETZAL.COM>]

Lojbab writes:
>> 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

But the refgrammar says:
]12.1)  mi tavla bau la lojban.
]       I speak in-language Lojban.
]
]has an explicit x1 place occupied by "mi" and an explicit "bau" place
]occupied by "la lojban."  To exchange these two, we use a modal conversion
]operator consisting of "jai" (of selma'o JAI) followed by the modal cmavo.
]Thus, the modal conversion of Example 12.1 is:
]
]12.2)  la lojban. jai bau tavla fai mi
]       Lojban is-the-language-of-speech used-by me.
]
]In Example 12.2, the modal place "la lojban." has become the x1 place
]of the new selbri "jai bau tavla".

Since not all BAIs take abstractions, it shouldn't be the case that {jai
BAI} automatcially raises the x1.  In this case, your rule would mean 12.2
is equivalent to {mi tavla bau tu'a la lojban.}, which I don't think makes
sense.