From cowan Mon Nov 20 09:30:45 1995 Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED CHANGE 37: Relative Clauses before names From: John Cowan To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) 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 Message-ID: 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.