Message-Id: <199511011350.IAA21995@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Fri, 27 Oct 1995 20:03:40 EDT
Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Re: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 36 (rev 2): Clarify vocative phrases
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

> ADDITIONAL NOTE:
>
> Jorge also proposed the form "DOI relative-clauses sumti", but I reject this,
> because it would not be clear whether the relative-clauses were to be taken as
> inside-the-ku or outside.

To me they would be clearly outside. How is the situation in {le pe mi broda ku}
any more clear, anyway? It's purely a matter of convention, isn't it?

Without that addition I don't like the change, because its effect is to make
ungrammatical things that are currently grammatical and which make perfect
sense. The argument that nothing is lost because a full sumti can be used
instead could also be used to eliminate altogether the forms DOI selbri
and DOI CMENE.

I'm not saying these forms would be particularly useful, but I don't
see the point of not allowing something that one would naturally expect
to be allowed, when there is no problem of any ambiguity.

Jorge