From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Sat Apr  8 20:57:35 1995
Date:         Sat, 8 Apr 1995 21:01:55 EDT
From: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU
Subject:      Arguments for some of the proposals.
To: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@access.digex.net>
Message-ID: <rl75TOxG4sB.A.ERB.K40kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

Arguments for some of the grammar extensions.

*********************************************************************
    B-1.  Allow {<tag>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<tag>} 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