Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id XAA02792 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:44:02 -0500
Message-Id: <199511150444.XAA02792@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 5E1A4B08 ; Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:57:07 -0400
Date:         Tue, 14 Nov 1995 22:55:56 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      splitting PA into multiple selma'o
X-To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Nov 14 23:44:05 1995
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU

And:
>* Split PA up into several selmao.

OK.  I'll bite.  The definition of a selma'o is that it have a distinct
grammatical (not semantic) role.  We have kept PA as one selma'o because
we truly could NOT figure out any substructure grammar that was
applicable.  At one time we DID have an attempt at a substructure
grammar - trying to build core numbers with prefixes and suffixes but 1)
it wasn't even close to LALR(1), and 2) we kept finding things we wanted
to say that violated the assumption that the numbers were central and
the modifiers secondary.

So even I am interested in what you would have in mind - not as a
serious proposal, of course %^).

lojbab