Message-Id: <199511282054.PAA15261@locke.ccil.org>
Date:         Tue, 28 Nov 1995 15:43:13 -0500
Reply-To: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X3: Extension of JA
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR

la lojbab cusku di'e

> You don't really want this

Yes, I really do!

> (even if it could YACC which I doubt).

How could it possibly not YACC? If JOI YACCs, then JA doing the same
that JOI does would have no other choice but to YACC.

> The flexibility of JOI comes at the expense of always requiring the
> elidable to terminate the previous construct.

{broda joi brode} requires no terminator.

> Nick for one has always
> found this to be a pain.

So do I, but this change does not aggravate the problem. You don't have
to use {je} instead of {.e} if you don't want to.

> Were it not for the possibility that JOI is a
> relatively open-ended set of connectives,

What do you mean open-ended? Are there plans to add more?

> most of whom have yet to be
> discovered,

Some of them don't seem to make any sense. What is the difference
between {jo'u} and {joi}? If there is a difference worth having,
how come there isn't a corresponding LE?

le vi broda .e le va broda      --> le re broda
le vi broda ku joi le va broda  --> lei re broda
le vi broda ku ce le va broda   --> le'i re broda
le vi broda ku jo'u le va broda --> ??????

> I would have proposed long ago to make multiple non-logical
> selma'o with different cmavo assigned to each - the exact oopposite of your
> proposal. %^)  (WE never seriously considered that one either.)

Why would you like to make the grammar more complicated? I think that
there are already too many selmaho for very specific things that should
not be there. Having to learn exceptions and special cases is difficult.
The more selmaho there are the more difficult the language becomes.

Jorge