Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA06344 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Sun, 14 Aug 1994 14:44:43 -0400 Message-Id: <199408141844.AA06344@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6108; Sun, 14 Aug 94 14:46:13 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2301; Sun, 14 Aug 1994 14:45:57 -0400 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) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sun Aug 14 14:44:46 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU 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