Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 10:14:56 -0400
From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)
Message-Id: <9208121414.AA04710@daily.grebyn.com>
To: 70674.1215@compuserve.com, I.Alexander.bra0122@oasis.icl.co.uk,
        c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk, cowan@snark.thyrsus.com, fred@wam.umd.edu,
        nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au, vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi
Subject: relative clause proposal- change 20
Content-Length: 1259
Lines: 25

Last night in Lojban class, I covered relative clauses, using a strategy
based on the philosophical insights involv3ed in the change 20 proposal
and Colin's arguments for change (and my responses).  I was able to cover the
mateiral in about 1-2 hours session, and the people in the class, of a variety
of levels of Lojban experience rabging to virtual novice, indicatted that 
they thought they understood it.

I omitted Change 21, which I think has too much opposition to be accepted at
this late date, and taught Option 1, which seems to be the slight favorite
among the 3 choices.

TLI now has 2 people who are aware of the change proposal, and I am awaiting
anything they care to say about it, as well as discussion at LogFest and
vetting from pc, but I am presuming at this point that it will be adopted,
with some modifications as mentioned by Cowan and Veijo (mostly due to
errors in the BNF).

Further comments are welcome, of course, but I thank all of you for your review
efforts on very short notice on a very intricate issue.  My apologies if
I've sounded testy - its been a hectic month and getting more so, but I think
our control procedures on change have had the desired effect of minimizing 
those that are unnecessary.

Thanks again to all.