From cowan  Sat Mar  6 22:58:23 2010
Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED CHANGE 37: Relative Clauses before names
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List)
From: cowan
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:30:45 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199511172306.SAA21072@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 17, 95 10:56:27 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length:        774
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 20 09:30:45 1995
X-From-Space-Address: cowan
Message-ID: <0bRM1V6aD0.A.m2B.P60kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

la .and. cusku di'e

> At present, is {doi la karl. noi kea banli} ungrammatical? Or does
> it mean "O Carl, who is great"?

The latter.

> Under the new proposals, on analogy with LA, {doi la karl noi kea
> banli} should mean "O Carl, who is great", while {doi noi kea
> banli .karl" should mean "O Carl the great", right?

Correct.

> A separate question: Why cannot {.karl.} be used as an independent sumti?
> It is not morphologically ambiguous. How come there must be a preceding
> LA or DOI?

Historically (and still in TLI Loglan) it meant the vocative; TLI Loglan
has no equivalent of "doi".  However, bare-name-as-vocative was
eliminated from the language in the 1986-87 time-frame; I don't know why.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.