Further Lojban->Prolog: relative clauses (Repost)

[Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>]

At the moment, if {ke'a} isn't there, it isn't assumed; it's pretty certain
that, if I don't find ke'a there, I'll shove it into the first free place
in the relative clause predication.

I've gotten numbers working too, but that's not that spectacular. I'm about
to implement the lo/le distinction (well, next week: done enough for this),
and would welcome any opinions.
---

mi prami le prenu ku poi ke'a citka le cakla

***

brivla prami
brivla prenu
brivla citka
brivla cakla
end_of_lex_list
mi prami le prenu ku poi keha citka le cakla ku vau kuho
vau

***

[q(suho(1), _FIODG, prenu(_FIODG, _FIPZL, _FIPZM, _FIPZN, _FIPZO), q(suho(1),
_FIRXG, cakla(_FIRXG, _FITTL, _FITTM, _FITTN, _FITTO), [], citka(_FIODG,
_FIRXG, _FIRXH, _FIRXI, _FIRXJ)), prami(mi, _FIODG, _FIODH, _FIODI, _FIODJ))]

Translation:

E X:
    prenu(X);
    (E Y:
         cakla(Y); [] (citka(X,Y))
    (prami(mi,X))



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nick S. Nicholas,                      "Rode like foam on the river of pity
CogSci & CompSci student,               Turned its tide to strength
University of Melbourne, Australia.     Healed the hole that ripped in living"
nsn@{munagin.ee|mundil.cs}.mu.oz.au           - Suzanne Vega, Book Of Dreams
______________________________________________________________________________