Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0t7SOO-0000ZOC; Mon, 23 Oct 95 21:18 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 34B0FAA5 ; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 20:18:40 +0100 Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 13:23:18 -0400 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: rel clause paper X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199510230652.CAA21113@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Oct 23, 95 06:47:01 am Content-Length: 1718 Lines: 52 la .and. cusku di'e > 1. Re. 6.10: why are relatives attached to {re karce} 'taken to be > of the outside-the-"ku" variety'? To get inside-ku, you must use > {re lo karce poi kuo ku}, right? Yes. Examining the BNF will reveal that only outside-the-"ku" relative clauses are actually permitted here. In most practical cases, viz. "re broda poi brode", inside vs. outside is a distinction without a difference. > 2. 8.3 shd read "le *vu* kumfa"? Fixed. > 3. Re 8.4: "but only that Frank is a man" - shd be "George"? Fixed. > 4. Is there any way for a relative to be part of a name? I could > address you by {doi xirma}, but could I address you by {doi xirma > poi ci da tuple kea}, without asserting that you have 3 legs, just > as I wouldn't be asserting that you are a horse? Distinguo. To get what you want, you would use "voi", which is to "le" as "poi" is to "lo". But that is not a name per se; it is a description, as it were, in the vocative case, like "o puella" in the elementary Latin textbooks. But using an inside-the-ku relative with a "la" makes it possible to have real names which contain relative clauses: 1) la nanmu poi terpa le ke'a xirma ku Man Afraid Of His Horse vs. 2) la nanmu ku poi terpa le ke'a xirma the person named "Man" who is afraid of his horse. I will add a section to the paper explaining this. > 5. Re 10.2. "the implication of [{keaxire}] is that sumti attached > to the second relative". Is there some way of making that explicit > rather than merely implied? Sorry, "implication" should have been simply "meaning". Fixed. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.