Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tGZjt-0000ZTC; Sat, 18 Nov 95 00:58 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 106BE8D4 ; Fri, 17 Nov 1995 23:58:32 +0100 Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 22:56:27 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED CHANGE 37: Relative Clauses before names X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 910 Lines: 22 > CURRENT LANGUAGE > Nothing can intervene between LA or DOI and a CMENE. > PROPOSED CHANGE > Allow relative clauses between LA or DOI and a CMENE. Also allow relative > clauses after "DOI CMENE" or "DOI relative-clauses CMENE". > RATIONALE > This will allow names with relative clauses that are part of the name, > like "la poi banli .karl." (Karl the Great, i.e. Charlemagne) and the > like. Needless to say, I think this is a good idea. At present, is {doi la karl. noi kea banli} ungrammatical? Or does it mean "O Carl, who is great"? 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? 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? Coo, mie voi me mi fa kea and