Re: lohe, lehe & ka

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

la lojbab cusku di'e

> 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.

If you count relative clauses and property abstractions with the same
index, it can be made unambiguous which level gets what number.

A different question is whether we want to merge the two cases, but there
is no problem of ambiguity, I think.

> 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.

They are at a deeper level than the relative clause, they get a new
subscript, just like one relative clause within another.

> 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

As it stands, ke'a would be the x1 of ckaji. If you wanted it to be
le nanmu, you'd have to use a subscript (xi pa?, I forget the convention
for embedded relative clauses.) To get it to refer to the man, you'd
use the same subscript that you'd use in an inner relative clause to
go up to the {le nanmu} level.

> 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.

That would be independent of the property, just like two relative clauses
in the same sentences attached to two different sumti are independent of each
other. There is no embedding in that case.

> 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.

It would be easier to see the example you have in mind. The one you give
explicitly presents no problems, the one you describe I'm not sure I can
understand what you mean.

Jorge