Date: Mon, 3 Aug 92 02:40:56 -0400
From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group)
Message-Id: <9208030640.AA22085@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,
        nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au, shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu,
        vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi
Content-Length: 10581
Lines: 413



Proposed Changes 1-21 to 2nd Baseline Lojban Grammar (Part 1 - Summary, 1-19)

Executive Summary:

1)      Change EK+KE and GIhEK+KE to lowest precedence
2)      Add JEK+BO construction
3)      Add various new freemod locations
4)      Add ZEI compoundss
5)      Allow observative after GI in forethought connected sentences
6)      Regularize BOI with free modifiers
7)      Simplify relative-clause connection to "zi'e" only
8)      Allow I+BO at the beginning of text
9)      Allow bare NAI at the beginning of text
10)     Allow any kind of joik in forethought
11)     Remove POhO
12)     Allow full selbri after NIhE
13)     Disallow NAhE in forethought termsets
14)     Allow multiple I or I+BO at the beginning of text
15)     Allow conversion of abstract and negated selbri
16)     Allow ZAhO+NAI for contradictory negation of event contours
17)     Merge LUhI into LAhE; make NAhE+BO equivalent to LAhE
18)     Merge BRODA and LEhAVLA into BRIVLA
19)     Regularize rule names in YACC and BNF versions and update comments
20)     Revise grammar of relative clause incorporation in sumti
21)     Allow nested relative clauses in addition to current ZIhEK joining


CHANGE 1

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Currently, EK+KE (and GIhEK+KE) constructs have higher precedence (bind more
tightly) than either EK+BO (GIhEK+BO) or EK (GIhEK) constructs.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Give EK+KE (GIhEK+KE) the lowest precedence among EKs (GIhEKs).

RATIONALE:

In NB3 Loglan, the equivalent of EK+KE and GIhEK+KE had high precedence.
In the first Lojban baseline, EK+KEs had been changed to low precedence,
and in the second baseline, GIhEK+KEs were changed to follow.  Consideration,
while writing the logical connective paper, of constructs like

        A .e B .ake C .e D

suggest that the most reasonable interpretation is:

        (A .e B) .ake (C .e D)

Therefore, this change restores the original Loglan situation.


CHANGE 2

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Currently, there is no way to group tanru components logically in pure
afterthought.  The only alternatives are:

        X je Y je Z

which groups left to right, and

        X je ke Y ja Z [ke'e]

which groups right to left but is a hybrid of forethought and afterthought.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow

        X je Y je bo Z

analogously to

        A .e B .abo C

in sumti.

RATIONALE:

Uniformity and flexibility.


CHANGE 3

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow freemods in the following new places:

        after LUhI
        after LOhO when not elided
        after LAhE for both sumti and operands
        after CO
        after CEI
        after NU[NAI]
        after NA preceding a selbri or a gek-bridi-tail
        after NAhE BO
        after NAhE, except in tenses and within NAhE BO
        after TUhE
        after TEhU when not elided

RATIONALE:

Increased flexibility.


CHANGE 4

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

There is no way to construct lujvo that involve le'avla or cmavo, unless the
cmavo have been assigned rafsi.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Add the metalinguistic cmavo "zei" (selma'o ZEI) which will join the word
before it and the word after it into a construct treated by the parser as
of selma'o BRIVLA.  More than two words can be joined by using multiple "zei"s.
The words "zo", "zoi", "la'o", "lo'u", "le'u", and "fa'o" cannot participate.
(Implementation note: place glue() between fabsorb() and termin().)

RATIONALE:

Other methods of incorporating le'avla into lujvo are extremely error-prone
and subject to a multitude of special-case tests.  No method of incorporating
cmavo has ever existed.  (NB3 Loglan allows incorporating lerfu into compounds
using a magic compounding method.)


CHANGE 5

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

It is not currently grammatical to say:

        ge mi klama le zarci gi klama fa mi le zdani

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow logically connected sentences wherein the first sentence has terms
before the selbri but the second one does not.  (The reverse situation is
still forbidden, because it looks like bridi-tail connection to a LALR(1)
parser.)

RATIONALE:

The previous restriction was arbitrary and unnecessary.


CHANGE 6

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

"boi" gets special treatment unlike that of all other elidables.  In all
other cases, free modifiers may optionally appear after the elidable
terminator (in which case it can't be elided).  Free modifiers must be
placed >before< "boi", however, because "boi" is used to terminate subscripts,
and subscripts are a species of free modifier.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Regularize the rules for "boi" so that it takes free modifiers after it,
except that no free modifiers at all are permitted on a "boi" that terminates
a subscript.  Provision is made for assigning a separate cmavo for the
a subscript.  ("ve'o" already has this split personality: no freemods if
it is terminating a subscript, but allowed otherwise.)

RATIONALE:

Simplicity and regularity.  A new convention is needed for subscripts on
subscripts, however; one possibility is to simply declare that consecutive
subscripts are taken to be nested.


CHANGE 7

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Multiple relative clauses can only be placed on a single sumti by connecting
them with logical connectives, namely ziheks.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Eliminate ziheks except for a single cmavo, "zi'e" of selma'o ZIhE, which
places two relative clauses on the same sumti but does not count as a logical
connection.

RATIONALE:

There is some doubt whether any of the ziheks make sense other than "zi'e",
which puts both relative clauses into effect.  Unlike other
logical connectives, ziheks cannot be split up into multiple sentences.


CHANGE 8

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Currently, a text can begin with a bare ".i" or an ijek, but not with an
".ibabo".

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow i+bo, ijek+bo, i+tense+bo, and ijek+tense+bo at the beginning of text.

RATIONALE:

Allows people to complete each other's expressions by adding causals,
presuppositions, and the like.


CHANGE 9

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Theoretically a text may begin with "nai", and this bare "nai" is taken as
attitudinal.  However, the parser does not currently handle bare initial "nai"
in embedded texts within quotes or parentheses.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow bare initial "nai" explicitly within the grammar rather than as a
preparser hack.

RATIONALE:

Uniformity and consistency.


CHANGE 10

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Forethought joiks (also known as joigiks) are restricted in their syntax.
In particular, GAhO brackets are not permitted in forethought.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Permit any sort of joik, so that joigiks are any joik + "gi".

RATIONALE:

Simplicity and uniformity, plus the ability to specify GAhO brackets
on forethought intervals.


CHANGE 11

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Three kinds of fragmentary utterances (bare I with or without jek or modal,
bare number, bare NA) currently have a special terminator "po'o" (of
selma'o POhO).  This terminator is always elidable.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Remove POhO.

RATIONALE:

It is never necessary because it can always be elided, so it serves no
purpose except to clutter the grammar.


CHANGE 12

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Only a restricted form of selbri (simple selbri plus optional linked arguments)
are currently allowed after NIhE.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow any kind of selbri.

RATIONALE:

The former restriction was meant to remove ambiguity, but now that the TEhU
delimiter has been introduced, it does the necessary job, and so a full
selbri is permissible.  This grammar is also parallel to that of MOhE,
which allows a full sumti.


CHANGE 13

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

In forethought termsets, a NAhE is allowed just after the NUhI.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Disallow this NAhE.

RATIONALE:

Nobody can figure out what it might mean to have a scalar negation of a termset,
a construct which exists solely to implement a certain kind of logical
connective.  What does it mean to scalar-negate two terms at once, still less
their logical connection?


CHANGE 14

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Only a single I or I+BO is allowed at the beginning of text.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow multiple Is or I+BOs consecutively.

RATIONALE:

Symmetry and simplicity.  With the elimination of POhO, multiple Is are now
allowed at the end of texts and between sentences.


CHANGE 15

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

It is not possible to convert an abstract selbri or one that has been
(scalar) negated.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow these forms.

RATIONALE:

Simplicity and uniformity.


CHANGE 16

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

PU and FAhA allow -NAI for contradictory negation.   This is not very useful
on tenses, (punai = na pu) but very useful for sumti tcita to deny that
the relationship holds.  ZAhO cannot take -NAI, although it is also useful
as a sumti tcita.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow ZAhO+NAI.

RATIONALE:

Consistency and general usefulness:  "mi morsi ca'onai le nu mi jmive" = "I
am dead, but not during my life."


CHANGE 17

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

 for indirect reference, indirect discourse, and sumti
raising; LUhI changes sumti between individuals, sets, and masses; NAhE+BO
provides sumti scalar negation.  LUhI has terminator LUhU; the others have
no terminators.  LAhE is also allowed on mekso operands.

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Merge LAhE and LUhI into a single selma'o, with the current grammar of
LUhI but named LAhE (for compatibility with the past).  Allow the same
grammar for sumti and for operands.  Change NAhE+BO grammar to be the same
as LAhE, thus allowing it on operands as well.

RATIONALE:

Proposed changes to the sumti grammar make LAhE and NAhE+BO messy without
terminators.  Merging them with LUhI allows greater generality and simplicity,
without needing to add a new terminator.  NAhE+BO is a compound and cannot
be merged directly, but can be made grammatically equivalent.


CHANGE 18

CURRENT LANGUAGE:

Technically, brivla fall into three selma'o:  LEhAVLA (for le'avla), BRODA
(for broda/brode/brodi/brodo/brodu), and BRIVLA (for everything else).

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Merge LEhAVLA and BRODA into BRIVLA.

RATIONALE:

The grammar is identical and the machine parser has never bothered to make
the distinction anyway.  It is a relic of long-ago pre-baseline versions.


CHANGE 19

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Various rule names:  bri_string -> selbri, bri_unit -> tanru_unit,
header_terms -> prenex, utt_string -> paragraph, cmene_A_404 -> cmene_404,
EKroot -> EK_root, no_FIhO_PU_mod -> simple_tag, sentenceA -> sentence_A,
indicators_412 -> indicators_A_412, bridi_valsi_408 -> bridi_valsi_A_408,
JOIK_JEK_957 -> simple_JOIK_JEK_957.

RATIONALE:

Consistency with the BNF version and other documents.  Also, no two rules
differ only in number.  (Some rules have the same names as selma'o, though.)