Message-Id: <199511130645.BAA13614@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Mon, 13 Nov 1995 06:37:49 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: rel clause paper
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

Djan:
> > >        la me la djan. tumclaxu
> > > which means "The one named 'The one named "John" type-of
> > > land-lacker". Suit?
> > Not satisfactory. I think of "Alfred the Great", "Dai Jones the
> > Bread", etc. A relative clause/phrase is part of the name. If
> > I use the name, I'm not claiming that Alfred was great, or that
> > Dai Jones is associated with the bread. Perhpas {la tumclaxu pou
> > la djan}, {la banli pou la alfred}? {la pou la alfred (geu) banli}?
> I accept your formulation, but I don't understand why you reject mine.
> I am constructing a name-tanru with two parts, >me la .alfred.< 'is
> Alfred' and >banli< 'is great', in parallel.  It could equally well be
> "la banli me la .alfred. [ku]"

I rejected it because it is a tanru, and therefore too vague, and
because it uses {me} which is also impossibly vague. (I see from
mentions on the list that you appear to have posted a slew of
new proposals, one of them pertaining to {me}, but for some reason
these haven't reached me.)
---
And