Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Sat, 11 Jul 92 08:07 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA23205; Sat, 11 Jul 92 07:51:05 EDT Received: from rutgers.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA16195; Sat, 11 Jul 92 06:57:28 -0400 Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP id AA26687; Sat, 11 Jul 92 06:52:06 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA17967; Sat, 11 Jul 92 06:05:46 EDT Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA08124; Sat, 11 Jul 92 05:31:17 -0400 Message-Id: <9207110931.AA08124@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5314; Sat, 11 Jul 92 05:30:50 EDT Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf034) id 5361; Sat, 11 Jul 92 05:30:28 EDT Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 04:09:58 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Response to Iain on Diagrammed Summary and Colin's Proposal X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Sat Jul 11 08:07:22 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.bitnet!LOJBAN I haven't read Colin's proposal yet,a nd doubt if I'll even get to it for a while, so Cowan is taking the first official cut at it. It will be considerred and decided prior to the book coming out. My sentiment is against change, but from what I've gathered from comments by John and others, much of this change is style of the grammar. If indeed the essence is a difference between surface structure and the grammar, my bent would be in favor of a fix that corrected it, because JCB always had the policy of making the YACC grammar reflect the human parse as closely as possible. It might be interesting to see what JCB's group feels about this issue, if it also is true of their version of Loglan, given his predisposition in this area. It might be important to consult if indeed peaceful cooperation between the two groups is the trend of the future. Comnments on this prospect are much welcomed, since we have to decide a policy on this type of question anyway. Now, again, not knowing what Colin's proposal is, I do not believe that the pg 19 quote from the grammar summary is a typo. It doesn't mention relativew clauses, however, which are not part of a description sumti, but rather an attachment on the end. number le number sumti modal selbri ku | | | | | | | | | | | | | terminator | | | | | description proper | | | | usually a tense or location cmavo | | | pseudo-possessive | | inside quantifier | article/descriptor outside quantifier e.g. ci le vo la djan. pu jibri ku Hmm. Just checked the parse ,and it is missing something - the number before the sumti isn't the inner quantifier, but a quantifier on the pseudo-possessive sumti, and the inner quantifier would come AFTER the possessive so lets make the example ci le re la djan. vo pu jibri ku ... Three of the 2 Johns' 4 former jobs ... So the grammar summary is not really wrong, but not complete either. Whether this matches what Colin would lik to see, someone else would have to determine. lojbab