From cowan Sat Mar 6 22:58:22 2010 Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X1: BAI afterthought connectives To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu (Lojban List) From: cowan Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 14:11:43 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <199511280112.UAA29426@locke.ccil.org> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 27, 95 05:00:01 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1332 Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 29 14:11:43 1995 X-From-Space-Address: cowan Message-ID: la xorxes. cusku di'e > CHANGE X1 > > PRESENT LANGUAGE: > > BAIs and other tags can be used as forethought connectives but > not in afterthought. > > PROPOSED CHANGE: > > Add "tag BO" as a joik. (Essentially BAI BO can be used wherever {joi} can > be used. > > RATIONALE: > > The possibility of using them as connectives already exists. This would > simply allow the afterthought form to be used as well. Some of them are very > useful (and have already been used in practice) e.g. maubo, me'abo, du'ibo, > ba'ibo. In general, "tag BO" can't be a joik, because joiks have to be compounded by the preparser, and thus can't include "fi'o...fe'u" type tags. I considered "stag BO" as a kind of joik, but I note that we already have joik-bos, and it seems to me that having .abu joibo by. du'ibo cy. joidu'ibo dy. group as (.abu joibo by.) du'ibo (cy. joidu'ibo dy.) is very counterintuitive: the three "-bo" connectives leads one to expect .abu joibo (by. du'ibo (cy. joidu'ibo dy.)) since "bo" implies right grouping. So what about allowing "stag BO" as a new kind of joik-bo, side by side with the existing "joik BO" and "joik stag BO"? That would allow its use in sumti, selbri, operands, and operators, but not elsewhere. YACC does not complain. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban.