From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Jan 10 00:04:07 1996
Received: from home.dc.lsoft.com (home.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.9]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id AAA06814 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Wed, 10 Jan 1996 00:04:02 -0500
Message-Id: <199601100504.AAA06814@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by home.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 98797F10 ; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 23:38:36 -0500
Date:         Tue, 9 Jan 1996 19:10:05 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Veijo's 1994 proposal for nested relative clauses
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  410


Veijo:
> > "And what do we learn from this, comrades?"  I'm not sure, but at any
> > rate some further thinking is needed.  Please comment!
>  I'd like to add this feature to the language. It offers a working
>  solution to a problem which people with an English background
>  don't mostly even perceive.

Could we be reminded in a bit more detail of the nature of the problem?

coo, mie lai and