Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t8f6P-0000ZQC; Fri, 27 Oct 95 05:05 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id DBB05499 ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 4:05:04 +0100 Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 22:26:05 GMT Reply-To: ia@stryx.demon.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: Iain Alexander Subject: Re: Relative clause paper X-To: cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2696 Lines: 74 Some (mainly typographical) comments. > 3.11) le kabri pe le mi pendo cu cmalu > The cup associated-with my friend is small. > My cup is small ^ friend's > 5.1) le gerku poi blabi cu klama > The dog which is-white goes. > > it must actually be true that the dog is white, or the > sentence constitutes a miscommunication. If there is a white > dog and a brown dog, and the speaker uses "le gerku" to refer ^ poi blabi > to the brown dog, then the listener will not understand correctly. > However, > When "le" is the descriptor being used, and the sumti has [no] ^^ > no explicit outer quantifier, then the outer quantifier is > understood to be "ro" (meaning "all"), as is explained elsewhere. > In that case, there is no difference between a relative clause > after the "ku" or before it. However, if the descriptor is > "lo", the difference is quite important: > > 6.8) lo prenu ku noi blabi cu klama le zarci > (some persons) incidentally-which are-white go to-the market. > > 6.9) lo prenu noi blabi [ku] cu klama le zarci > some (persons incidentally-which are-white) go to-the market. > > Both Examples 68 and 6.9 tell us that one or more persons ^^ 6.8 > 7.5) le mi noi sipna karce cu na klama ^ ku > The of-me incidentally-which( is-sleeping) car isn't going. (Duplicate of And's comment on 8.3 omitted.) > 9.3) fi'i la frank. .e. la djordj. ^^^ .e > Welcome, Frank and George! > 10.1) le prenu poi zvati le kumfa poi blanu cu masno > The person who is-in the room which is-blue is-slow. > > However, an ambiguity can exist if "ke'a" is used in a relative clause > within a relative clause: does it refer to the outermost sumti, or to > the sumti within the outer relative clause? I know what you mean, and it's accurately expressed, but ... I think you need to emphasise the innerness more. Maybe "or to the sumti to which the inner relative clause is attached". > 12. Relative Clause BNF > > What follows is the complete syntax of Lojban sumti and free > modifiers, although many features appearing here are only > described elsewhere, if they aren't relevant to relative clauses. > > [s]umti<90> = sumti-1 [VUhO relative-clauses] ^ co'o mi'e .i,n. -- Iain Alexander ia@stryx.demon.co.uk I.Alexander@bra0125.wins.icl.co.uk