Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tHX82-0000ZUC; Mon, 20 Nov 95 16:23 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 9954B801 ; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:23:25 +0100 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 09:30:45 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED CHANGE 37: Relative Clauses before names X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199511172306.SAA21072@locke.ccil.org> from "ucleaar" at Nov 17, 95 10:56:27 pm Content-Length: 820 Lines: 24 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.