From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sat Mar  6 22:58:11 2010
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Date: Thu Nov 30 17:19:24 1995
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X4: Forethought bridi and
              bridi-tail connection
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 30 17:19:24 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
Message-ID: <OL4Ad40i6mB.A.ezB.D60kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org>

CHANGE X4

PRESENT LANGUAGE:

The following are allowed:

        ge ko'a broda gi ko'e brode
        ge ko'a broda gi brode
        ge broda gi brode

But this one is not:

        *ge broda gi ko'e brode

PROPOSED CHANGE:

Allow that form, along with the more general:

        ko'a ge ko'e broda gi ko'i brode

This would mean eliminating the distinction between bridi and
bridi-tail forethought connection.

RATIONALE:

It is really counterintuitive that {ge ko'a broda gi brode} is allowed
while {ge broda gi ko'e brode} is not. The distinction between bridi
and bridi-tail forethought connection is totally arbitrary. The general
connection makes perfect sense semantically within the frame of the
language as it is.

NOTE: This change is an extension. It does not affect any existing
grammatical text.