Message-Id: <m0qZNNy-00004tC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 13 Aug 1994 14:01:16 EDT
Reply-To:     jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Nested preposed relatives (Was: Re: Allnoun)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2655
Lines: 76

la veion cusku di'e

> > le nanla poi raplydarxi le gerku poi jersi le mlatu poi kavbu le smacu poi
> > citka le cirla poi le fetsyselfu pu cliva ke'a noi cpana le jubme
>
> Now try to append {cu bruna mi} (you could, of course, invert the main
> clause and say {mi [se] bruna le nanla poi ...}).

Ok, let's consider a slight simplification:

(i)  le cirla citka smacu kavbu mlatu jersi gerku darxi nanla cu bruna mi

(ii) le nanla poi darxi le gerku poi jersi le mlatu poi kavbu le smacu poi
     citka le cirla cu bruna mi

I understand (ii), although it's not a simple sentence. I could never understand
something like (i) without detailed analysis. Certainly not on first hearing it.

> In Finnish we would
> use a word order similar to lojbab's tanru in a situation like this where
> the subject and predicate would otherwise be separated by a lot of
> noise.

It's not just the word order. If you add other information the word order
is not so crucial.

>     Hiiren pyydystanytta kissaa ajava koira    on musta
>  le smacu  kavbu         mlatu  jersi gerku cu xekri
>
> The structure in Finnish is readily understandable and generally
> used (with practically NO nesting limit).

But in Finnish you do have the noun-verb-noun-verb-noun iteration to guide you,
which is not there in a Lojban tanru. (Assuming pyydystanytta and ajava are
verb forms, am I right?)  Maybe a five element tanru can be understood, given
that some gismu are more verbish and some are more nounish, but for very
long tanru, I doubt it can be done.

Just out of curiosity, how would you say in Finnish "The mouse-catching,
cat-chasing dog is black"?

> I find
>
> (5) le poi le smacu pu kavbu ku'o mlatu
>
> quite natural

Yes, I don't have a problem with that one, either. Maybe even better:

      le poi le smacu pu kavbu ke'a mlatu

> but extending that to
>
> (6) le poi le poi le smacu pu kavbu ku'o mlatu cu jersi ku'o gerku
>
> leads to something rather unpalatable.

That's not merely unpalatable. It's indigestible.

> 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# sentence]... XUhO# sumti_tail_1

But {mlatu cu jersi} in your example is not a sentence. And if you
change it to {le mlatu cu jersi} you no longer know which sumti is the
head of the clause. Also, we'd need subindexed {ke'a}s to keep
track of what is what. I think the whole thing would be much too
complicated.

Jorge