Re: rel clause paper

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

> > 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.

That's not quite what I meant. I want your name to be "xirma poi
ci da tuple kea". I.e. {doi lao ly. xirma poi ci da tuple kea ly.}
rather than {doi lao ly xirma ly poi ci da tuple kea ly}.

> 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.

Yes, this is what I was after. Now, is (1) possible with a cmevla
instead of "nanmu", as in:

3)  la frederik poi terpa le kea xirma ku
    Frederick-afraid-of-his-horse

like "Ethelred the Unready", "John Lackland", or "John Smith"
for that matter - or "John Johnson", "John Cowan"?

---
And