Re: TECH: PROPOSED CHANGE 37: Relative Clauses before names

la .and. cusku di'e

> At present, is {doi la karl. noi kea banli} ungrammatical? Or does
> it mean "O Carl, who is great"?

The latter.

> Under the new proposals, on analogy with LA, {doi la karl noi kea
> banli} should mean "O Carl, who is great", while {doi noi kea
> banli .karl" should mean "O Carl the great", right?

Correct.

> A separate question: Why cannot {.karl.} be used as an independent sumti?
> It is not morphologically ambiguous. How come there must be a preceding
> LA or DOI?

Historically (and still in TLI Loglan) it meant the vocative; TLI Loglan
has no equivalent of "doi".  However, bare-name-as-vocative was
eliminated from the language in the 1986-87 time-frame; I don't know why.

-- 
John Cowan					cowan@ccil.org
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.