Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qa5rs-00004uC; Mon, 15 Aug 94 20:30 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8129; Mon, 15 Aug 94 20:29:20 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8124; Mon, 15 Aug 1994 20:29:10 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 2200; Mon, 15 Aug 1994 19:25:21 +0200 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 10:50:14 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Nested preposed relative clauses To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1085 Lines: 31 la veion cusku di'e > I am taking a wider view at the problem of preposed relative > clauses seeing that Jorge isn't very happy with them. Your exposition was very enlightening. You're right, the articles are the key to the problem. I like your second solution a bit more than the first, because you don't have to know that you're going to use a second clause when you start the first one. > This would require but a single new selma'o/cmavo {xu'o}. The example > would read > > *le poi le tcadu cu se klama xu'o nanmu cu se viska ku'o verba [ which would mean the same as le verba poi viska le nanmu poi klama le tcadu ] > The basic structure of Lojban is such that there is no way to avoid > descriptors. However, the above amendment would remove the innate > center-embedding problem in one of the most frequent cases and > enhance the useability of the language significantly (from the > viewpoint of people with non-descriptor native tongues, e.g. quite > many non-Indo-European ones.) If it doesn't create ambiguities, I suppose I wouldn't be against it. Jorge