From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Wed Aug  4 20:02:12 1993
Received: from MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 5 Aug 1993 00:04:29 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 5 Aug 1993 00:04:25 -0400
Message-Id: <199308050404.AA16678@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5234; Thu, 05 Aug 93 00:03:16 EDT
Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with
 BSMTP id 3487; Thu, 05 Aug 93 00:04:43 EDT
Date:         Thu, 5 Aug 1993 00:02:12 EDT
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@GREBYN.COM>
Subject:      Re: TECH: query re. selcmavo NU
X-To:         ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk
X-Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: Erik Rauch <erikr@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>
Status: O
X-Status: 

mi ne pu do
uses a relative phrase, rather than a relative clause, hence has no capability
for a resumptive pronoun.  the equivalent relative clause requires converting
pu to its corresponding selbri, whihc then requires dragging abstractions
into it since the places of purci are events, and the event beig related
is not mi and do, but what we are doing.  Thus the above would be
reexpressed as
mi noi [tu'a {ke'a=mi}] purci tu'a do (cu klama le zarci)

lojbab