Re: rel clause paper

la .and. cusku di'e

> 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?

Yes.  Examining the BNF will reveal that only outside-the-"ku" relative
clauses are actually permitted here.  In most practical cases, viz.
"re broda poi brode", inside vs. outside is a distinction without a
difference.

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

Fixed.

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

Fixed.

> 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?

Distinguo.  To get what you want, you would use "voi", which is to "le"
as "poi" is to "lo".  But that is not a name per se; it is a description,
as it were, in the vocative case, like "o puella" in the elementary Latin
textbooks.

But using an inside-the-ku relative with a "la" makes it possible to have
real names which contain relative clauses:

1)	la nanmu poi terpa le ke'a xirma ku
	Man Afraid Of His Horse

vs.

2)	la nanmu ku poi terpa le ke'a xirma
	the person named "Man" who is afraid of his horse.

I will add a section to the paper explaining this.

> 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?

Sorry, "implication" should have been simply "meaning".  Fixed.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.