From jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:56:32 2010 Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 20:57:21 EDT From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: TECH: Summary of proposals wanting of definition. To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Sat Apr 8 20:53:22 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: A couple of months ago Lojbab asked me to make a summary of all the proposals that have been discussed lately that need a final decision. I don't claim that this list is complete, if your favourite proposal is missing please let me know. I have divided the issues into three groups: A. Cmavo/rafsi additions. A-1. Add re'u as the ordinal ROI. A-2. Add xo'u as the leap-to-outside-prenex marker, I suppose in selma'o UI. (Made by pc & And.) A-3. Add te'i for tense offset magnitude, I'm not sure in what selma'o. (Made by Goran.) A-4. Add xa'e as lambda marker in slema'o PA. (Made by John.) A-5. Add jaz as a rafsi for jai B. Grammar extensions. B-1. Allow {bo} as afterthought sumti connector. (The forethought form already exists.) B-2. Allow {gi} as afterthough bridi-tail connector. (The forethought form already exists.) B-3. Allow JA wherever JOI is allowed. B-4. Add xu'o of selma'o XUhO to allow multiple embedded fronted relative clauses. (Made by Veijo.) C. Changes in interpretation. C-1. Change interpretation of ZI and VA as sumti tcita so that the tagged sumti is the magnitude instead of the starting point. C-2. Use ke'a as the lambda variable in addition to its usual role in relative clauses. C-3. Interpret {30ji'i40} as "around 30 or 40". Almost none of these proposals affect any existing text, since they mostly involve extensions. The only exception might be C-1, but even then the only affected cmavo is {vi}, which already behaves anomalously anyway. Some of them are different proposals to solve the same problem, so it wouldn't make sense to accept them both. These are A-3/C-1 and A-4/C-2. In other posts I provide arguments for some (not all) of these proposals. Jorge