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 m0rBmGy-00007EC; Sun, 27 Nov 94 18:16 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2801; Sun, 27 Nov 94 18:16:34 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2797; Sun, 27 Nov 1994 18:16:34 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 7144; Sun, 27 Nov 1994 17:13:21 +0100 Date: Sun, 27 Nov 1994 11:14:01 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: lohe, lehe & ka To: ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk Cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 708 Lines: 15 ke'a would not work for the proposed marker because it already has an assigned meaning, and it is easy to envision conflict in that meaning (unless I am missing something). What happens when the reference is inside a relative clause and is NOT the relativized pronoun. Composing on the fly something like: lo nanmu poi ganse leka le rozgu cu se panci I don't even see a way to use ke'a in the abstraction, and if it did, it would refer to the man. Most of the gismu that have abstractions seem to be such that the focused place in the property abstraction is an echo of x1. If you have a relative clause such that the relativized pronoun is NOT that x1, then you have a conflict in use of ke'a. lojbab