ciska bai tu'a zo bai

[Chris Bogart <cbogart@quetzal.com>]

>From the draft reference grammar (I downloaded it months ago; I hope I'm not
picking nits off a dead horse)

9.1)    mi tavla bau la lojban. bai la lojbab.
        I speak in-language Lojban with-compeller Lojbab.
        I speak in Lojban, under compulsion by Lojbab.

I think "bai" comes from "bapli", which takes an event in its x1 place, as in:

        tu'a la lojbab. cu bapli lenu mi tavla
        some-abstraction-about Lojbab forces the-event-of I speak

...which I approve of because I think the customarily "raised" subject of
the English word "force" is particularly conducive to sophistry.


So why doesn't this example in the reference grammar say:

        mi tavla bau la lojban. bai tu'a la lojbab.
        I speak in-language lojban, compelled-by some-abstration-wrt Lojbab

I don't mean to be nitpicky; I realize it's just a draft, but I wanted to
clear up whether that was an error in the paper or whether "bai"'s sumti
really doesn't need to be raised.  (I'm rooting for "bai tu'a la lojbab.",
by the way; the possibility of "bai la lojbab." na se gleki mi.)

(ta'o) I am a great fan of tu'a and of the minds that conceived of such a
word -- it's a little chunk of intellectual rigor boiled down into two
syllables.

(ta'onai) It seems to me that the modal "bai" is akin to the causal modals,
ri'a, mu'i, ku'i, and ni'i.

        mi tavla .ibaibo la lojbab. te xarci mi
        I speak.  THis is compelled by: Lojbab points a weapon at me

or

        mi tavla bai lenu la lojbab. te xarci mi
        I speak, compelled-by the-event-of lojbab points a weapon at me

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Chris Bogart
 cbogart@quetzal.com
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~