From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Fri Oct 27 20:29:20 1995 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by mail1.access.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA04657; for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 20:29:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199510280029.UAA04657@mail1.access.digex.net> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 6A55F4D0 ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 20:15:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 20:03:40 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Re: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 36 (rev 2): Clarify vocative phrases To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Status: RO > 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