Return-Path: Received: from kantti.helsinki.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0ry0ug-0009acC; Sun, 9 Apr 95 20:36 EET DST Received: from fiport.funet.fi (fiport.funet.fi [128.214.109.150]) by kantti.helsinki.fi (8.6.11p1+Emil1.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id UAA29709 for ; Sun, 9 Apr 1995 20:36:42 +0300 Received: from LISTSERV.FUNET.FI (LISTSERV@FIPORT) by FIPORT.FUNET.FI (PMDF V4.3-13 #2494) id <01HP5683A4KW007H31@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>; Sun, 09 Apr 1995 17:36:30 +0200 (EET) Date: Sat, 08 Apr 1995 21:01:55 -0400 (EDT) From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Subject: Arguments for some of the proposals. Sender: Lojban list To: Veijo Vilva Reply-to: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Message-id: <01HP56847XOY007H31@FIPORT.FUNET.FI> X-Envelope-to: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1627 Lines: 57 Arguments for some of the grammar extensions. ********************************************************************* B-1. Allow {bo} as afterthought sumti connector. (The forethought form already exists.) This would allow things like: ko'a prami ko'e maubo ko'i Koha loves Kohe more than Kohi. which is the afterthought form of: ko'a prami maugi ko'e gi ko'i Also, with tenses: ko'a klama la romas babo la paris Koha goes to Rome and then to Paris. which is the same as: ko'a klama bagi la romas gi la paris There is no reason not to allow the afterthought form of already existing forethought forms, especially since they are very useful. ********************************************************************* B-2. Allow {gi} as afterthough bridi-tail connector. (The forethought form already exists.) This would allow things like: mi fa'u do dei ciska gifa'u tcidu I write and you read this. which already can be said in forethought form: mi fa'u do dei fa'ugi ciska gi tcidu As in B-1, since the forethought form exists, and it is useful, there is no reason not to allow the afterthought form. ********************************************************************* B-3. Allow JA wherever JOI is allowed. This would make possible for example the use of {mi je do} alongside {mi .e do}. People already do this sometimes even though it is not grammatical. There is no possible ambiguity arising from this, so I think it should be allowed, and let usage decide which form is preferred. Jorge