Return-Path: <cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN>
Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19)
	id <m0lEYxh-00025UC@snark.thyrsus.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 92 00:26 EST
Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91)
	id AA03285; Wed, 12 Feb 92 22:00:51 EST
Received: from rutgers.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA00101; Wed, 12 Feb 92 21:53:57 -0500
Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP 
	id AA20138; Wed, 12 Feb 92 20:40:10 EST
Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91)
	id AA23175; Wed, 12 Feb 92 19:26:28 EST
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (via uunet.UU.NET) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA06362; Wed, 12 Feb 92 18:32:23 -0500
Message-Id: <9202122332.AA06362@relay2.UU.NET>
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 5664; Wed, 12 Feb 92 18:30:59 EST
Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 7987; Wed, 12 Feb 92 18:29:03 EST
Date:         Wed, 12 Feb 1992 18:15:30 GMT
Reply-To: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>
Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>
Subject:      Re: colin's grammar change proposal
X-To:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@grebyn.com>
X-Cc:         Lojban list <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
In-Reply-To:  <9202112248.AA09519@daily.grebyn.com>; from "Logical Language
              Group" at Feb 11, 92 5:48 pm
Status: RO
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Feb 13 00:26:21 1992
X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN

>
> Unfortunately le pe mi pendo is ambiguous when generalized, because of the
> existence of indefinites (ci pendo, etc.)  This is a long-standing problem
> in increasing flexibility of the grammar of sumti, but JCB tried once
> or twice to get rid of indefinite sumti, and they just kept coming back in his
> and others usage being so natural.  Indefinites seem more important to me than
> fronted relative clauses.  I'm willing to exper8iment with the latter, but
> that experiment must be unambiguous, and must not use any new cmavo/selma'o
> or I will be opposed.
>
> lojbab
>
I don't understand this posting. I don't khow whether you are now
rejecting all of my suggestion, or part of it, or part of your
translation of it.
I can't believe that generalising
        LE <sumti> <selbri>
to
        LE <relative clauses> <selbri>
can introduce any ambiguity, and I think this is worth doing.

Your suggestion (apart from the vocative stuff, which I hadn't thought
of) seemed to try to combine my two ideas into one and then got stuck in
quantifiers. I am not entirely happy (as somebody else said) about
        le poi crino ku'o le pendo
- there seems to be one more descriptor than is comfortable, but I was
willing to go along with it for getting the generality of my idea in. If
your conclusion is that you can't get the full generality in without a
new cmavo, and you want to reject it for that reason, I accept that. But
if you are rejecting the whole idea, I am not happy.

If you are concerned about introducing an asymmetry, in that only
descriptions will be able to have fronted relatives, then I respond that
we already have that symmetry, as only descriptions are able to take the
highly anomalous fronted possessor.

                Colin