Next instalment of R. Srikanth's compact conlang called Lin:

(a) Equivalent Clauses
    By this term, Srikanth means clauses joined by 'and', 'or' and 'but',
as well as some subordinating conjunctions such as 'after', 'before.   The
conjunctions given by Srikanth are:
& (and)
# (but)
> (before [temporal])
< (after [temporal])

[So Lin _does_ use {&}, just like Speedwords.  But no pronunciation appears
to be given for {&} or {#} ]

u v px # s -v u (You see the bird but it doesn't see you)

A space on either side of the conjunction is necessary.  We are reminded
that 'if' is not counted as a conjunction in Lin, but as a postposition of
verb or clause.  [No examples are given of it postposited to a clause.]

(b) Interrogatives
(i) Srikanth began this section with the following 'interrogative table':
interrogative/         correlative           relative
{1} = what/who?        ----                  ----
{2} = why?            {+} = for the same     {*} because
                            reason that
{3} = how?            {=} = as               {^} = by the means that
{4} = where?          {|} = where            ----
{5} = when?           {\} = when             ----
{6} = how much/       {:} = as much as       ----
'The last column, "relative" has the last three rows empty since an event
(represented by a subordinate clause) can't serve as a place, time or
quantity (but can serve as a reason or means).'

Srikanth says that pronominal correlatives & relatives will be treated in
his Section 7; but, in fact, Section 7 deals with 'participles'.

But, back to the story....
The interrogatives are not fronted, but are placed according to their PoS.
But while pronominal interrogatives behave like 0th [zeroth] generation
words, adverbial or adjectival ones are prefixed to the VP or NP they
qualify.   A sentence initial {?} acts as sentence delimiter.

Demonstratives, which are not used spatially but to imply stress, are
formed like demonstratives, except that the initial ? is dropped.
u f+h              ====> ?u 2f+h
You fear the being ====> Why do you fear the being?

?u f+1             ====> u f+1h
Whom do you fear?  ====> You fear that/this being

px v u + i N u
The bird sees you for the same reason that I know you.

px v u * i N u
The bird sees you because I know you.
[Not my examples]

A prefixed {?}, which is _inseparably_ bound (i.e. not the sentence
delimiter above), serves as the _interrogative qualifier_ and may thus be
used as an adjective or adverb.
?h N u    "What being knows you?"
u ?v s    "How do you see it?" [= In what manner do you see it?]

The last sentence should not be confused with:
?3 u v s  "How do you see it?" [=By what means do you see it]

The former sentence might be answered: _t1_ 'carefully'; the latter might
be answered: _bn`m 'with binoculars'.

Yes-no questions are asked with the sentence-initial {?}.  If a particular
component is being singled out for stress, then {?} is suffixed to that
component also.
?u f+h    "Do you fear the being?"
?u f?+h   "Do you *fear* the being?"
?u f+h?   "Do you fear *the being*?

(c) Clauses via amplification
The Lynu term [according to Srikanth] for the formation of noun clauses,
such as ones introduced by "(that).....", is 'amplification'.  The noun is
visualized as being amlified.  This type of clause is delimited by
parentheses (   ) [Remember how they're pronounced!].  Indeed,
amplification is described by Srikanth as a generalization of subordinate
clauses since it can be used to replace any component of a sentence,
including verbs - the noun/verb is substituted by a parenthesized
expression, with one of the parentheses being optional if it can be
otherwise inferred.

Example of object noun amplification:
u a+ki       "You help the child"
m+N (u a+ki   "Management knows (that) you help the child"

The second sentence may be written out in full thus: _m+N (u a+ki)_ but
this is unnercessary.

Example of subject noun amplification:
u a+ki)\/m
literally: (you help child) (1,2) be-meant
"It is meant that you help the child"

The full form  _(u a+ki)\/m_ in unnecessary.

Examples of verb amplification:
h (u a+ki) = h (u a+ki
the-being (you help the-child)s, i.e.
the being does the action that you help the child -->
"the being causes you to help the child."

h (u a+ki) i
the-being (you help the child)s me, i.e.
the being subjects me to the action that you help the child -->
"The being causes me to cause you to help the child."

[Personally, I am not convinced by 'verb amplification' in which, in
effect, a noun clause is used as a verb!  Nor am I persuaded that the
English meaning follows from this usage.  However, I will quote Srikanth:
{quote} The corresponding term in formal grammar, "the verbal clause", does
not exist, to my knowledge.  But to the alien Lynu-psyche this linguistic
universal does not apply!  The "verb clause" is a specific action thought
to be caused, or to be indirectly caused, by the agent acting thru [sic]
the object of the main clause.  The amplified unit is assumed to be first
generation (if generation has to be marked)." {unquote}]

(d) Relative pronouns
    Lin does not employ relative pronouns.  Instead, the relativized
noun/verb is thought of as a "node" from which the main and relative
clauses extend, like branches of a binary tree.  The telepathic Lynu
speaker utters both branches at the same time!

The basic strategy is to avoid center embedding of relative clauses, such
that the repeated component of the two clauses are placed adjacently, and
the one in the relative clause is eliminated.  This is illustrated in four
types of sentence:

(i) type p+ sentence:
Here the object of the main clause coincides with the subject of the
relative clause; for example:
px v u                   i N px
a bird sees you          I know the bird
These are 'convolved' to give:
i N px>v u
I know the bird that sees you

 i N px>f+u   "I know the bird that fears you"
but -
 i N px>\f    "I know the bird that fears"

In the last sentence, {>} has been treated as a word of generation 1 in
order to disambiguate {f} in the absence of an object.

So also:
 i N>v u     "I know the one who sees you"
 i N>f+u     "I know the one who fears you"
 i N>v       "I know the one who sees"
 i N>\f      "I know the one who fears"

(ii) type +p sentence:
Here the subject of the main clause coincides with the object of the
relative clause; for example:
i N px                px v u
I know a bird         the bird sees you
are convolved to give:
i N<px v u
{I know REL bird see(s) you}
"The bird that I know sees you"

 i\f<px v u   "The bird that I fear sees you"
 i\f<px v     "The bird that I fear sees"

 i N<v u      "The one that I know sees you
 i\f<v u      "The one that I fear sees you"
 i\f<v        "The one that I fear sees/looks on"

(iii) type p- sentence:
     Here the object in the two clauses coincide; for example:
i N px             u v px
I know a bird      you see the bird

These two sentences cannot be convolved as such because the relativized
word _px_ is no longer juxtaposed in the two sentences.  One must use the
inversion morpheme to render the subordinate sentence as _px N/ i_ after
which convolution may proceed, thus:
  u v px>N/ i
 {you see bird REL know-INV i}
 "You see the bird (that) I know"

 u f+px>f/+i  (or) u\f px>f/+i
 "You fear the bird that I fear"  *
 u v>N/ i
 "You see the one that I know"
 "You fear the one I fear"

 u v px>`s m/ e
 {you see bird REL POSTP with move-INV she/they}
 "You see the bird with whom they move"
 u\f>`s m/ i
 "You fear the one I move with"

*The alternative is the same but spelt differently! (Think about the cements!)

(iv) type -p sentence:
    Here the subject of the two clauses coincide, for example:
px N i                 px v u
a bird knows me        the bird sees you

Again the sentences cannot be convolved without inversion of one of them;
we therfore render the first clause as _i N/ px_ and then convolve the twp,
 i N/<px v u  (or) i N/px v u
{me know-INV REL bird see you}
"The bird that knows me sees you"

  u\f/<px N i
  "The bird that fears you knows me"
  i N/<v u (or) i N/v u
  "The one that knows me sees you".

The alternatives above are not variant spellings.  They just exploit the
reduncy of the clause limit marker {<} and omit it  :)

Phew! I think that will do for the moment - Part 2 of 'clauses' will
follow.  Look forward to: non-restrictive clauses, multiple clauses,
relative pro-verbs and relative pro-qualifiers.

Don't forget the four types of relative clause sentences; they'll crop up
again when we look at 'Participles'.

The above notes were tricky to type; they were one or two obvious typos in
Srikanth's account which I've corrected.  I hope I haven't intoduced any
new ones.

Keep watching this space  :)