rel clause paper

[ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>]

1. Re. 6.10: why are relatives attached to {re karce} 'taken to be
of the outside-the-"ku" variety'? To get inside-ku, you must use
{re lo karce poi kuo ku}, right?

2. 8.3 shd read "le *vu* kumfa"?

3. Re 8.4: "but only that Frank is a man" - shd be "George"?

4. Is there any way for a relative to be part of a name? I could
address you by {doi xirma}, but could I address you by {doi xirma
poi ci da tuple kea}, without asserting that you have 3 legs, just
as I wouldn't be asserting that you are a horse?

5. Re 10.2. "the implication of [{keaxire}] is that sumti attached
to the second relative". Is there some way of making that explicit
rather than merely implied?

---
And