[lojban] Re: tu'e in relative clause

[Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 10:09:45PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> I just wrote the following in [[auskalerik]]:
> 
> ni'o la .auskalerik. cu vasru ze gugypau poi tu'e vo ke'a cu zvati
> la sangug .ije ci ke'a cu zvati la fasygug. tu'u .i la .Arabak .e
> la gipuskuak .e la nafaruak .e la biskaiak. zvati la sangug .ije
> la diz.nafaruak .e la lapurdik .e la suberuak. zvati la fasygug
> 
> jbofi'e chokes on {tu'e}. Why?

Because POI takes the subsentence production:

subsentence = sentence / prenex subsentence

sentence = [terms [CU *free]] bridi-tail

There is no way from there to statement-3, which is where TUhE comes
in:

statement-3 = sentence / [tag] TUhE *free text-1 {TUhU *free}

In other words, a tu'e clause is "too big" for POI.

> How should I say it?

Uhhhh.

The only way I see to stick more than one bridi in a poi clause is
ge...gi stuff.  I would use "poi la'e da'e", myself.

-Robin, who hasn't actually read the text in question.

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/