From lojbab Thu Aug 18 01:22:36 1994 Received: from access1.digex.net by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA06544 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 18 Aug 1994 01:22:34 -0400 Received: by access1.digex.net id AA17646 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for lojbab); Thu, 18 Aug 1994 01:22:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 01:22:32 -0400 From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199408180522.AA17646@access1.digex.net> To: veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi Subject: Re: YACC for nested preposed relatives Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net Status: RO Right. I am so busy with the dictionary that I really cannot give this proposal proper consideration. In addition, neither Cowan nor Nick has commented on it. And Colin, who origianlly got us into the preposed relative clause business, is off-line for another month. As a result, I think the time is not ripe for actually considering the change, until more of the powers-that-be choose to comment (and are available to consider things). In my case, I am still back on mail from last MAY, so even when I get some time, I have to go back and see what other proposals I haven't paid attention to as well. Meanwhile, pc is now on-line though on vacation, and he will add still one more experienced person to the discussions, though he is severely non-net-aware thus far and will have a learning curve. The most critical thing about your proposal is the possibility of adding a cmavo or two, since that has more impact on the dictionarythan a grammar change does. We have a hotter cmavo issue right now with this xruti thing, and Nick's implicit suggestion that we need to be able to use "jai" in lujvo instead of -gau. This may require us to change "jai" to another cmavo that is in a less dense part of rafsi space than the "jxx" set. I haven't yet read to see if this is indeed what Nick is proposing, if he has posted (your message is first in my queue today). lojbab