Re: Relative clause paper

[Iain Alexander <ia@STRYX.DEMON.CO.UK>]

Some (mainly typographical) comments.

> 3.11)   le kabri pe le mi pendo cu cmalu
>         The cup associated-with my friend is small.
>         My cup is small
            ^
            friend's

> 5.1)    le gerku poi blabi cu klama
>         The dog which is-white goes.
>
> it must actually be true that the dog is white, or the
> sentence constitutes a miscommunication.  If there is a white
> dog and a brown dog, and the speaker uses "le gerku" to refer
                                                     ^
                                                     poi blabi
> to the brown dog, then the listener will not understand correctly.
> However,


> When "le" is the descriptor being used, and the sumti has [no]
                                                             ^^
> no explicit outer quantifier, then the outer quantifier is
> understood to be "ro" (meaning "all"), as is explained elsewhere.
> In that case, there is no difference between a relative clause
> after the "ku" or before it.  However, if the descriptor is
> "lo", the difference is quite important:
>
> 6.8)    lo prenu ku noi blabi cu klama le zarci
>         (some persons) incidentally-which are-white go to-the market.
>
> 6.9)    lo prenu noi blabi [ku] cu klama le zarci
>         some (persons incidentally-which are-white) go to-the market.
>
> Both Examples 68 and 6.9 tell us that one or more persons
                ^^
                6.8

> 7.5)    le mi noi sipna karce cu na klama
                         ^
                         ku
>         The of-me incidentally-which( is-sleeping) car isn't going.

(Duplicate of And's comment on 8.3 omitted.)

> 9.3)    fi'i la frank. .e. la djordj.
                         ^^^
                         .e
>         Welcome, Frank and George!

> 10.1)   le prenu poi zvati le kumfa poi blanu cu masno
>         The person who is-in the room which is-blue is-slow.
>
> However, an ambiguity can exist if "ke'a" is used in a relative clause
> within a relative clause: does it refer to the outermost sumti, or to
> the sumti within the outer relative clause?

I know what you mean, and it's accurately expressed, but ...
I think you need to emphasise the innerness more.
Maybe "or to the sumti to which the inner relative clause is attached".

> 12.  Relative Clause BNF
>
> What follows is the complete syntax of Lojban sumti and free
> modifiers, although many features appearing here are only
> described elsewhere, if they aren't relevant to relative clauses.
>
> [s]umti<90> = sumti-1 [VUhO relative-clauses]
   ^

co'o mi'e .i,n.
--
Iain Alexander                    ia@stryx.demon.co.uk
                    I.Alexander@bra0125.wins.icl.co.uk