Re: lohe, lehe & ka

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

JL>la lojbab cusku di'e
JL>
JL>> ke'a would not work for the proposed marker because it already has an
JL>> assigned meaning, and it is easy to envision conflict in that meaning
JL>> (unless I am missing something).   What happens when the reference is
JL>> inside a relative clause and is NOT the relativized pronoun.
JL>
JL>Same thing that happens when there is one relative clause inside another,
JL>we have to resort to subindices.
JL>
JL>Fortunately, {ke'a} is only rarely needed, and such embedding is even
JL>rarer, so the problem wouldn't arise much in practice. The solution
JL>(indexing) is a bad one, but it is sufficient for a problem that doesn't
JL>seem to appear in practice.  

Except that indexing is unambiguous if ke'a ONLY is used as a relative
pronoun, since there is only one such pronoun per level of nesting.  Now
you are talking about providing a second possible meaning for ke'a that
has nothing to do with relative pronouns, but which could also occur in
a relative clause.  No amount of subscripting will make it clear what the
referent of this ke'a is, since people will look for it to be a relative
pronoun.
JL>The property and the relative clause are at different levels, so it can
JL>be disambiguated with subindices, if ever it is needed.

But what about properties that are expressed INSIDE relative clauses.

e.g."the man whose actions are characterized by goodness"

le nanmu poi le ke'a nu zukte cu ckaji le ka *ke'a xamgu

Now you can claim that you could make this a ke'a sub zero, but what if there
is a relative clause involving that sumti within the stated relative clause.
In that case, ke'a sub zero would be a self-reference and not a reference to
the x1 of ckaji as I think you would intend here.

lojbab