From cowan Sun Mar 10 20:44:30 1996
Subject: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 20:44:30 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length:  2429
Message-ID: <Ra9HnuV-TuH.A.xqG.4v0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>


CHANGE 36

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

There are three basic kinds of vocative phrases:  "DOI name", "DOI selbri",
and "DOI sumti".  (Here DOI stands for possible multiple COIs with or without
following DOI as well).  The third case, "DOI sumti", is the general case
which can handle whatever is needed with some extra cmavo, since "DOI name"
really means "DOI la name", and "DOI selbri" really means "DOI le selbri".

Relative clauses are currently allowed after "DOI name", and either before
or after the selbri in "DOI selbri".  However, if relative clauses precede
the selbri, then a full sumti-tail-1 (essentially a description without a
descriptor) is permitted.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Only allow a selbri in the context "DOI relative-clauses ...".
This allows "DOI selbri" to have relative clauses before or after the selbri.
In addition, a new rule is added allowing relative clauses both before and
after the selbri.  Quantifiers are disallowed altogether.  Legal cases are:

	doi pe mi pendo
	do pendo poi melbi
	doi pe mi pendo poi melbi

all of which are natural and easy to understand.

RATIONALE:

The current language allows vocative phrases of certain types only if
a preposed relative clause is present:  "DOI relative-clauses quantifier
selbri", "DOI relative-clauses quantifier selbri relative-clauses", 
"DOI relative-clauses quantifier sumti", and possibly other forms.  All
of these are meaningful, but their existence makes vocative phrases hard
to teach.

Nothing is lost by making these forms ungrammatical, because if they are needed,
a full sumti can be used instead.

ADDITIONAL NOTE:

Jorge also proposed the form "DOI relative-clauses sumti", but I reject this,
because it would not be clear whether the relative-clauses were to be taken as
inside-the-ku or outside.  There is no other place where relative clauses
can appear before a sumti as such.


3c3
<      THIS DRAFT ALSO INCORPORATES CHANGE PROPOSALS 1-35 DATED 29 MARCH 1994
---
>      THIS DRAFT ALSO INCORPORATES CHANGE PROPOSALS 1-36 DATED 26 OCTOBER 1995
19c19
<   grammar.235
---
>   grammar.236
484c484,486
<                                   sumti_tail_A_112  DOhU_gap_457
---
>                                   selbri_130  DOhU_gap_457
>                         |  DOI_415  relative_clauses_121
>                                   selbri_130  relative_clauses_121  DOhU_gap_457