Re: Nested preposed relative clauses

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

la veion cusku di'e

> I am taking a wider view at the problem of preposed relative
> clauses seeing that Jorge isn't very happy with them.

Your exposition was very enlightening. You're right, the articles
are the key to the problem.

I like your second solution a bit more than the first, because you
don't have to know that you're going to use a second clause when
you start the first one.

> This would require but a single new selma'o/cmavo {xu'o}. The example
> would read
>
>   *le poi le tcadu cu se klama xu'o nanmu cu se viska ku'o verba

[ which would mean the same as

      le verba poi viska le nanmu poi klama le tcadu  ]

> The basic structure of Lojban is such that there is no way to avoid
> descriptors. However, the above amendment would remove the innate
> center-embedding problem in one of the most frequent cases and
> enhance the useability of the language significantly (from the
> viewpoint of people with non-descriptor native tongues, e.g. quite
> many non-Indo-European ones.)

If it doesn't create ambiguities, I suppose I wouldn't be against it.

Jorge