From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Jan 11 18:47:18 1996
Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id SAA22014 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 18:47:13 -0500
Message-Id: <199601112347.SAA22014@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 16F333C0 ; Thu, 11 Jan 1996 18:17:39 -0500
Date:         Thu, 11 Jan 1996 18:41:18 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Nested preposed relative clauses
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  1596


It is interesting to see processing difficulty used as a rationale
for an augmentation to the grammar.

> Some descriptor languages (English) have very limited possibilities
> of using preposed restrictive clauses. German fares better but
> succumbs soon with a bad case of center-embedding, as does Lojban.
> In some non-descriptor languages (Finnish) the preposed clauses
> are a viable/preferred alternative to postposed relative clauses.
> In some others (Japanese) they are about the only possibility.
>  J:  ((((machi) e iku) otoko) o miru) kodomo
>  F:  ((((kaupunkiin) menevan) miehen) nakeva) lapsi
>  G:  das ((den (in die Stadt gehenden) Mann) sehende) Kind
>  L:  le (poi (le (poi (le tcadu) cu se klama ku'o) nanmu) cu se viska
>      ku'o) verba
>  E: *((((into the town) going) man) seeing) child

English does have similar constructions though, e.g.:

  man eating tiger tranquilizing gun cleaning machines
  "machines that clean guns that tranquilize tigers that eat men"

  Sophy's brother's new book's author's name

> This would require but a single new selma'o/cmavo {xu'o}. The example
> would read
>  *le poi le tcadu cu se klama xu'o nanmu cu se viska ku'o verba

"The city-entering-man-seeing child"

> No language known to me is able to handle {ke'a}s unambiguously
> in the case of nested relative clauses - whether preposed or
> postposed.

I proposed a method, using prenexes, that I think has been adopted:
the kea refers to the sumti modified by the relative clause that the
kea is in the outermost bridi of.

coo, mie and