From lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Tue Mar 12 00:04:35 1996 Received: from punt4.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA10775 ; Tue, 12 Mar 96 00:04:25 GMT Received: from punt-4.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 826508982:02226:0; Mon, 11 Mar 96 01:49:42 GMT Received: from cunyvm.cuny.edu ([128.228.1.2]) by punt-4.mail.demon.net id aa01962; 11 Mar 96 1:48 GMT Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4064; Sun, 10 Mar 96 20:48:18 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 7200; Sun, 10 Mar 96 20:48:43 EDT Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 20:44:30 -0500 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <826508926.1962.0@cunyvm.cuny.edu> Status: R ---------------------- Information from the mail header ----------------------- Sender: Lojban list Poster: John Cowan Subject: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE 2$i ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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