Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tKSb4-0000ZUC; Tue, 28 Nov 95 18:09 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id BEB0107E ; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 17:09:30 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 11:07:00 LCL Reply-To: BARRETO%VELAHF@ECCSA.TR.UNISYS.COM Sender: Lojban list From: Paulo Barreto Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X1, X2, etc. etc. etc. X-To: lojban%cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu@TRSVR.BITNET To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 600 Lines: 15 Jorge: >NOTE: This change is an extension. It does not affect any existing >grammatical text. As you describe them, they seem to be syntactical simplifications -- something to make grammar more orthogonal. Should I assume you checked whether the LALR(1) property still holds? If so, all three changes sound OK (but I'll bet many people won't be satisfied with the JA/JOI quasi-equivalence :-) co'o mi'e paulos. Paulo S. L. M. Barreto -- Software Analyst -- Unisys Brazil Standard disclaimer applies ("I do not speak for Unisys", etc.) e'osai ko sarji la lojban.