WikiDiscuss

---

> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > the language as a BAI. At some point — I
> don't
> > much care when, though it was after whenever
> my
> > paper list was made up — a number of BAI
> were
> > added on the basis — as far as I can tell --
> of
> > that second sense of being in the language.
> It
> > may be that some few of these have been used
> (my
> > list has a large handful of SEBAI, enough to
> > establish the pattern). The rest seem merely
> to
> > be an excresence.
>
> I agree most BAIs are an excresence, but we
> have to define them
> because they are a part of the official
> language.

I just dealt with that in another reply: if you
must say something about them, say that they have
no specified meaning but that it is likely that,
sho8uld they be used, the would mean something in
the general area of ---. And then admit there
are no examples.

> > > Not sure what you mean by that. There are
> > > 1400 or so gismu in the language.
> >
> > But around 100,000 CVCCV and CCVCV forms.
>
> Yes, but they are not official gismu.

Nor, in a sane world, would these excrescences be
offical BAI or whatever.

> > > But unfortunately the BAIs are not in
> > > experimental
> > > space. They are a standard part of the
> official
> > > cmavo,
> > > all of which need defining.
> >
> > No, they need editing if they are already in,
> and
> > a note about how to get them back in if a
> need
> > for them arises,
>
> It's easier to add than to remove, and even
> adding anything
> at this point is extremely difficult.

You don't have a delete key? But I have
suggested a work-around (which corresponds with
what I suggested earlier, namely that these
potential words be listed and a general statement
made about likely areas of meaning in each case
-- or better in a general statement).

> > > {to'e ri'a nai} is the more regular
> > > construction for
> > > "not prevented by/in spite of".
> > >
> > But the official line does not contain
> {to'e},
> > nor ought it Zipfily. And the claim that it
> is
> > regular presupposes that there are rules,
> which
> > is not obviously the case.
>
> It is obvious to me that there are rules. Or
> perhaps I'm just delusional?
>
Every rule that I have seen you propose has clear
exceptions among the oldest level of forms. Even
your revised "despite," if you really mean it to
be regular, runs afoul of other cases from the
same stratum or earlier. (it requires that {nai}
scope over {to'e ri'a}, whereas in many cases
{nai} has to scope only over the attached phrase).