I spotted this while playing with the “ownership” relation:
[code]Ownership relates various things to one animal.
The verb to be owned by means the ownership relation.
Mr Socks is an animal.
The badge is a thing. It is owned by Mr Socks.
The scarf is a thing which is owned by Mr Socks.
The Garden of Confusing Relationships is a room.
All the animals are in the garden.[/code]
When you run this code, you see that Mr Socks and the scarf are in the garden: e.g. Inform thinks both of them are animals. And in fact you can confirm that the relationships have been parsed backwards:
Ownership relates various things to one animal:
The badge >=> Mr Socks
Mr Socks >=> the scarf
To me, the clause “which is owned by” should be grammatically equivalent to a new sentence starting “It is owned by.”
Is this a bug? Or a subtle feature I’m misunderstanding?