Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id CAA21113 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 02:52:46 -0400
Message-Id: <199510230652.CAA21113@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id BF08AC70 ; Mon, 23 Oct 1995 2:50:16 -0400
Date:         Mon, 23 Oct 1995 06:47:01 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      rel clause paper
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Oct 23 02:52:48 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

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?

2. 8.3 shd read "le *vu* kumfa"?

3. Re 8.4: "but only that Frank is a man" - shd be "George"?

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?

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?

---
And