Names modified by adjectives

["61510::GILSON" <cbmvax!uunet!CCF3.NRL.NAVY.MIL!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!gilson!61510.decnet>]

"Mark E. Shoulson" <shoulson%CTR.COLUMBIA.EDU@CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU> writes:

>Well, there certainly is an East Orange, and a South Orange, and an Orange
>(no North Orange).  And they are collectively referred to as "The Oranges".
>But there is still a problem or two left to deal with.  First off, on a
>purely grammatical point, how do we swing this?  Translating a whole name,
>I can see.  cmenifying a whole name, also.  But half-translations bust the
>grammar.  {la stici narju} (assuming "Orange" as color, which is wrong) is
>grammatical, as is {la .uest. .oranj.}.  But {*la stici .oranj.} doesn't
>work.  Maybe {la .oranj. poi stici}, but that's mighty long-winded, after
>all the name of the city is "West Orange", not "Orange, but the western
>one".  The relative clause makes people think of something else.  {la stic.
>oranj.} would be okay, but would confuse people thoroughly.

You mean in Lojban you can't modify a proper name by a Lojban adjective? You
can't talk about "the first Elizabeth" or "the most populous Springfield in
the United States"? This seems to be a weakness of the language if so.

                                                 Bruce