BPFK Section: Case sumtcita
> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > The BAI are a closed class if you mean by
> that a
> > group of forms that are composed from the
> simple
> > BAI taken either alone
>
> Yes, that's what I mean. The members of selma'o
> BAI.
I see that I have been careless. Revise my
comments to accord with the subject heading: not
BAI but sumtcita or whatever fits the case.
> or with a SE prefixed
> > (probably restricted by the adicity of the
> > "corresponding brivla").
>
> SE BAI are tags, they are called BAI* in the
> ma'oste. All possible SE BAIs
> are included in the official ma'oste as well as
> in CLL.
>
> > Or even through all
> > forms generated by any predicate and the
> device
> > for isolating a place from it (although this
> is
> > technically not a closed class since the
> class of
> > predicates is not).
>
> Those are tags, but not BAIs. I suppose none of
> them will be in the dictionary
> under their own entry. A few should be there
> under {fi'o}.
>
> The class of actual (used)
> > BAI is not a closed class, we can add to that
> > simply by using one in a real way (I take it
> that
> > made up — and often farfetched — examples
> do
> > not count).
>
> The BPFK is not defining used cmavo only, it is
> defining all official
> cmavo.
To which I say that they have no business being
official if they do not actually occur. But,
since BPFK has to say something about every item
on some list, how about just putting in boiler
plate: "We have no specifics about what this
expression may be used to mean, however there is
some reason to think it will be in the general
area of the th place of -/ There are no
examples." This, of course, assumes that
established tags have fairly clear and precise
definitions. I don't feel that is always the
case now, but I tend to be very fussy on that and
what there is may be adequate for practical purposes.