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 m0qZkXb-00004uC; Sun, 14 Aug 94 21:44 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0394; Sun, 14 Aug 94 21:42:58 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 0389; Sun, 14 Aug 1994 21:42:57 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 8150; Sun, 14 Aug 1994 20:41:57 +0200 Date: Sun, 14 Aug 1994 14:46:11 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Nested preposed relatives (Was: Re: Allnoun) To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 976 Lines: 25 la veion cusku di'e > > A simple change to the > > grammar would help a lot in this situation. One ought to be able to > > say just something like > > > > (7) *le xoi le smacu pu kavbu ku'o mlatu cu jersi xu'o gerku > > > > sumti_tail = [sumti_5 [relative_clauses]] sumti_tail_1 > > > | relative_clauses sumti_tail_1 > *| XOI sentence [KUhO# sumti_tail_1]... XUhO# sumti_tail_1 It still doesn't work, because {mlatu cu jersi} is not a sumti-tail. Even if you succeed in making it work however, this still doesn't put them on an equal footing with postposed clauses, for at least one reason: you can only nest {poi}s, what about {noi}s? And if you have another XOI for {noi}s, what about mixtures? I think this construction would be too specific, so I don't think it's worth the extra complication of the grammar. Relative clauses are essentially postposed in Lojban, and I doubt that can be changed with any simple change to the grammar. Jorge