Message-Id: <199601212115.QAB01645@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Sun, 21 Jan 1996 17:27:10 +0000
Reply-To: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Nested relative clauses
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Status: OR
Content-Length: 1029

Kolin:
> In Lojban we have invariable words, but clearly defined categories:
> 'xirma' is a  brivla; it can therefore function as a selbri, or a
> bridi, or indeed a jufra. It cannot be a sumti - it needs an explicit
> converter, normally a gadri. Now my objection to 're xirma' is that a
> laivla (quantifier word) is being used as this converter. Clearly it
> can be made to work because it has been; but in my view it's a kludge,
> in large part because it means 're lo xirma' and that 'lo' is part of
> the skeleton of the phrase. (The presence of 'le re xirma' complicates
> the issue further)

John has made {re xirma} and {re lo xirma} nonequivalent in either one
or two ways (they're different with respect to dogbiting behaviour
("2 men bite 3 dogs" - how many dogs?) and possibly with respect to
existential import.

But anyway, if {re xirma} were equivalent to {re lo xirma}, and
deserves your criticism, it would be a very mild offender, since the
rule by which it is abbreviated is so straightforward.

coo, mie and