Received: from minerva.phyast.pitt.edu (minerva.phyast.pitt.edu [136.142.111.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA18070 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:33:41 -0400 From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Received: from clueless.phyast.pitt.edu by minerva.phyast.pitt.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA04092; Wed, 18 Oct 95 17:32:17 EDT Received: by clueless.phyast.pitt.edu (4.1/EMI-2.1) id AA00866; Wed, 18 Oct 95 17:31:04 EDT Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 17:31:04 EDT Message-Id: <9510182131.AA00866@clueless.phyast.pitt.edu> To: cowan@locke.ccil.org Subject: Re: Relative clause paper, part 2 of 2 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Oct 18 17:33:46 1995 X-From-Space-Address: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu > > Why? {le li mu mitre} seems to be as good for {le mitre be li mu} > > as {le mi mamta} is for {le mamta be mi}. > > The assumption that "le mi broda" means "le broda be mi" is unwarranted. > If you mean the latter, say so. (This form is a Carterism.) That's why I said "as good". If one is good so is the other, and {le mi mamta} is used often with that meaning. At least you will agree that {le mitre be li mu} is one of the possible meanings of {le li mu mitre}. (And I can't think of a more likely one.) Jorge