cleft place structures

Um, this may be a Red Herring, but it seems to me that these cleft place
structures have a lot in common with relative clauses.  I mean, the
complaint is that the actor gets re-used in a subortinate clause which
indicates how the change was effected or whatever.  Note that the actor of
the main sentence need not be the actor of the subordinate one (for lack of
a better term.  Note also that "actor" doesn't have that much of a meaning
in Lojban, nor does the x1 place deserve spectial treatment.  But the label
is convenient), nor does the actor even need to appear in the subordinate
clause (e.g. Arthur Protin's Iraqi example, "I will modify our country's
borders by your invasion of Kuwait.")

It seems that you ought to allow the use of ke'a (that's the relative
pronound, yes?) in such constructions to refer to the actor of the main
clause (oh, dear, that gives x1 special treatment.  Oh, well, I think it's
happened elsewhere.)  Obviously, the grammar doesn't care (isn't ke'a just
a pro-sumti, like mi or do?), but the semantics seem to work, at first
glance.  It may be that in order to avoid these cleft places, it might be
best to excise the places in which they occur and use BAI clauses sort of
like poi with ke'a or whatever to express them.

Hope that's not too bad a case of "simple solution to complex problem"
disease.

co'omi'e mark.