Message-Id: <199411272140.AA17869@nfs2.digex.net> From: Jorge Llambias Date: Sun Nov 27 16:40:53 1994 Subject: Re: lohe, lehe & ka Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sun Nov 27 16:40:53 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu la lojbab cusku di'e > 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. Same thing that happens when there is one relative clause inside another, we have to resort to subindices. Fortunately, {ke'a} is only rarely needed, and such embedding is even rarer, so the problem wouldn't arise much in practice. The solution (indexing) is a bad one, but it is sufficient for a problem that doesn't seem to appear in practice. > 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. I don't see what ke'a would mean there either, which makes me wonder why that place needs a property. Does the man sense the smell or the property of the rose having a smell? Is it a property of the rose, that he senses? In any case, there is no confusion in that example, since there is no place to use ke'a. > 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. The property and the relative clause are at different levels, so it can be disambiguated with subindices, if ever it is needed. Jorge